DNA studies on Jews

[squeehunter]

I'm wondering if we know who are the ancestors to the Jews. Maybe DNA evidence isn't even necessary but whatever. The only thing I've been able to find out about it is that all living Jews today can trace their ancestry back to at least the early iron age. I've also heard that the Jews and Kurds have a common ancestor. And that a certain part of their DNA "signature" is common in people living around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Has any dating been done past that regarding the ancestors of the Jews? Or can we just go by archaeological evidence and what not?

[squeehunter]

Apparently you can only edit a post within 45 minutes and mine took longer than that to research and type. Anyway, I found some DNA evidence and it seems to point to the Jews and Palestinians having a common ancestor in the canaanites who also interbred with all of the surrounding peoples. Here's the link. Search for canaan. http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-jews.html I don't know much about Genesis but I found this power point pointing out how things got kind or racially mixed.

Abraham, his friends
and his extended family
Abraham’s second wife Hagar was Egyptian (Genesis 16:3).
Jacob’s wives included Bilhah and Zilpah (Genesis 30:3, 9), of unrecorded ethnic origin, but probably different from Leah and Rachel.
Esau married two Hittite wives (Genesis 26:34), in addition to the daughter of his uncle Ishmael (Genesis 28:9).

Abraham, his friends
and his extended family
Judah’s wife Shua (Genesis 38:2) and his daughter-in-law Tamar (Genesis 38:6) - with whom he later had sex when she was a widow - were Canaanites.
Joseph’s wife Asenath was Egyptian (Genesis 41:45), mother of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

Anyway, maybe someone can make sense of this to me. I'm not a 100% literalist by the way. Someone who isn't going to say this is all lies, preferabablly.

[edit in time this time]

There are some arguments to be made that Abraham was actually from the Palestinian area and not around Mesopotamia. That would smooth things out abit.

[Ben Sinai]

Well for those that claim to be Ashkenaz jews there’s one bit of scripture that pops up waving that all instinctive red flag...........

Gen 10:2 The sons of Yefet: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Yavan, Tuval, Meshekh, and Tiras.
Gen 10:3 The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Rifat, and Togarmah.

And having DNA proof that white people having a kinship with other white people which derived from the loins of Yefet being the father of all the Indo-Euro-Asian ethnicity’s is an eye opener to say the least. The way I understand it is that those of the loins of Cham and Shem were of a darker variety. Scripture states that………

Jer 12:9 For me, my heritage is like a speckled bird of prey - other birds of prey surround her and attack her. Go, gather all the wild animals, and bring them to devour her.

There is considered 33 different shades of black. There was also a DNA study that came up with proof that All three sons of Noach was black. The sons of Yefet that went north lost their pigmentation and became lighter.

[Crow]

And having DNA proof that white people having a kinship with other white people which derived from the loins of Yefet being the father of all the Indo-Euro-Asian ethnicity’s is an eye opener to say the least. The way I understand it is that those of the loins of Cham and Shem were of a darker variety. Scripture states that………

Jer 12:9 For me, my heritage is like a speckled bird of prey - other birds of prey surround her and attack her. Go, gather all the wild animals, and bring them to devour her.

Now if I were to read that passage as literally describing the coloration of those of the loins of Cham and Shem, I'd have to conclude that scripture says they were spotted. I read it as the heritage being that of a member of a group who had many enemies.

There is considered 33 different shades of black. There was also a DNA study that came up with proof that All three sons of Noach was black. The sons of Yefet that went north lost their pigmentation and became lighter.

Could you link me up with that DNA study? I'd like to see the study that proved the sons of Noach even existed, let alone what color they were. Many thanks in advance.

[John Goddard]

The only thing I've been able to find out about it is that all living Jews today can trace their ancestry back to at least the early iron age.

That's funny because Jews can be Chinese, Mexican, Black, White, Eskimo...anyone of any race can convert to Judaism and be a Jew.

But Israelites have a common ancestor of Jacob, and they can be any religion: Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian.

That's what you need to get clear before you start out on that kind of research.

[Ben Sinai]

Could you link me up with that DNA study? I'd like to see the study that proved the sons of Noach even existed, let alone what color they were. Many thanks in advance.

The study itself does not prove that Noach, or his sons existed. I speak as to what I believe which is written within the pages of the bible. What it does show is that those that are white lost their pigmentation. I believing in the bible, and what is written therein of Noach and his sons, have came to the conclusion that they, the son'e of Noach, would be of the same color of their father which had not lost his pigmentation.

In any case here is the link I have for your perusal........

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingt...For+White+Skin

[squeehunter]

But Israelites have a common ancestor of Jacob, and they can be any religion: Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian. That's what you need to get clear before you start out on that kind of research.

I know the difference and some of the studies themselves were done in order to tell who was really an "Isrealite" or who just has a tradition of being one and being "Jewish". I just thought that the term "Isrealite" only referred to early uhh... Jews or Israelites or something. Actually, what is the name for the people I'm referring to through out history? What was Abraham's group of people called? Then pre-Exodus, and Post-Exodus.

[Ben Sinai]

what is the name for the people I'm referring to through out history? What was Abraham's group of people called? Then pre-Exodus, and Post-Exodus.

Pre? Hebrew as all that desended from Iber.

Post? Hebrew Yisraelite as all that then that desended from Yacob/Yisrael.

Though we have to remember that people were also known as where they were from. But as far as ethnicity is of concerned I believe we have answered the question correctly.

[technomage]

Anyway, maybe someone can make sense of this to me.

Fundamentally speaking, the Jews came from Canaan. We can see that not only in the genetics, but also in their language (most closely related to the Canaanite and Ugaritic groups), and their customs (again, closely related to other Levantine tribes). This is important evidence against some anti-Jewish writers who argue that European Jews are not descended from the Jews of the Middle East, but are supposedly of Turkish descent.

[Ben Sinai]

Fundamentally speaking, the Jews came from Canaan. We can see that not only in the genetics, but also in their language (most closely related to the Canaanite and Ugaritic groups), and their customs (again, closely related to other Levantine tribes). This is important evidence against some anti-Jewish writers who argue that European Jews are not descended from the Jews of the Middle East, but are supposedly of Turkish descent.

This only seems to prove that these peoples adopted the language, and some of the customs, of the Hebrew Yisraelites. As far as genetics are of concern one could show that being the northern tribes were replaced by other people by the king of Assyria that it would only be logical to deduce that there would be genetic ties with others within that neck of the woods.

2Ki 17:24 And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.

　

[John Goddard]

I know the difference and some of the studies themselves were done in order to tell who was really an "Isrealite" or who just has a tradition of being one and being "Jewish". I just thought that the term "Isrealite" only referred to early uhh... Jews or Israelites or something. Actually, what is the name for the people I'm referring to through out history? What was Abraham's group of people called? Then pre-Exodus, and Post-Exodus.

Hebrews.

But if you are talking to Jews, they will still call themselves Hebrews or Israelites, even if they are converted in.

So you have to make it clear you are talking about genetic descent from Abraham or Jacob, not just religious or ethnic affiliation.

[technomage]

[QUOTE=Ben Sinai;2702532][SIZE=2]This only seems to prove that these peoples adopted the language, and some of the customs, of the Hebrew Yisraelites.

That would be an interesting possibility, but the Ugaritic and Canaanite languages both predate Hebrew.

As far as genetics are of concern one could show that being the northern tribes were replaced by other people by the king of Assyria that it would only be logical to deduce that there would be genetic ties with others within that neck of the woods.

Genetic links can be roughly dated as to how far back they go--and when I say "roughly," I mean within a century or so. The genetic links the article speaks of far predate the Assyrian captivity.

The real issue here is this: yes, the modern day Jews are Hebrew. The Hebrews, in turn, are Canaanites. They speak a language that descended from Canaanite, their material culture is closely identified as splitting off from the local Canaanite cultures around 1200 BCE or so.

[Ben Sinai]

That would be an interesting possibility, but the Ugaritic and Canaanite languages both predate Hebrew.

　
Yes, it is very interesting because these languages were the prequels to many others including Greek and Latin as well as Hebrew. If one adopts another’s language it doesn’t mean that they have now became those people. If I start speaking Russian, even though I was born in USA, does it make me Russian? No. Nor does speaking Hebrew make you a Hebrew.
　

Genetic links can be roughly dated as to how far back they go--and when I say "roughly," I mean within a century or so. The genetic links the article speaks of far predate the Assyrian captivity.

　
O.k. then we can say that they are possibly Canaanites. That still doesn’t make you Hebrew. A Hebrew is from the loins of Iber through Shem while a Canaanite is from the loins of Canaan through Ham. Now can a Canaanite have Hebrew blood in them? Yes because of the disobedience of the sons of Yisrael when they didn’t kill all the women and children when they went in to posses the land of Canaan for to make it their home Yisrael. But just because you can show that one has a link with those that lived in the land of Canaan doesn’t in the least show proof that this one is in fact a Hebrew Yisraelite. As far as coming from what we know as the area of Turkey is of concern, I would have to say that it might be possible to show that we all came from there if we follow what scripture states. I do believe that text states that Noach and his three sons was on a ark that landed on the mountains of Ararat which last I looked was in that area of what we know today as Turkey and Iran. Just how far back did these links predate Assyrian captivity?
　

The real issue here is this: yes, the modern day Jews are Hebrew. The Hebrews, in turn, are Canaanites. They speak a language that descended from Canaanite, their material culture is closely identified as splitting off from the local Canaanite cultures around 1200 BCE or so.

　
Again I have red flags popping up all over the place. I can’t see how one can positively come to such a forgone conclusion with all the variables at hand. Again one can adopt another’s language, culture and practices. People do the same everyday when they choose to convert to another belief or decide to move and live in another part of the world and decide to adopt it’s culture, language and practices. My best scenario is in the movie “Malibu’s Most wanted” where Jamie Kennedy being a white boy who adopted the culture, language and practices of another ethnic group. It is extremely possible that those white people from the Rhineland of Germany that go by the name of the grandson of Yefet which was Ashkenaz that call themselves jews did the same thing.

[technomage]

　
Yes, it is very interesting because these languages were the prequels to many others including Greek and Latin as well as Hebrew.

Please, Ben Sinai--you demonstrate either a remarkable ignorance, or a grave disrespect for, the facts. Proto-Canaanite is not the "prequel" to either Greek or Latin--the closest one can come to such a statement is that the Greeks did use a Phoenecian invention (the alphabet) to write their language. Greek and Latin are not semitic languages.

A Hebrew is from the loins of Iber through Shem while a Canaanite is from the loins of Canaan through Ham. Now can a Canaanite have Hebrew blood in them? Yes because of the disobedience of the sons of Yisrael when they didn’t kill all the women and children when they went in to posses the land of Canaan for to make it their home Yisrael.[/quote]

Ben Sinai, you will notice that this particular sub-forum is dedicated to archaeology--not myth. The history myths of the Hebrews have their place in academic study, but they are not historical events, and have little or no place in an achaeological discussion.

Again I have red flags popping up all over the place.[/QUOTE]

Probably because you expect the evidence to follow the myth. I am sorry, but it does not.

[Ben Sinai]

Please, Ben Sinai--you demonstrate either a remarkable ignorance, or a grave disrespect for, the facts.

　
Neither.
　
My understanding is quite clear as to my statement. I have full understanding of it and respect the facts. You on the other hand are lacking in that. Respect!
　

Proto-Canaanite is not the "prequel" to either Greek or Latin--the closest one can come to such a statement is that the Greeks did use a Phoenecian invention (the alphabet) to write their language. Greek and Latin are not semitic languages.

　
And this is exactly what I stated and meant. The Ugaritic alphabet showed the first examples of the Levantine and South Semitic orders of the alphabet which was “prequels” to Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic and yes, even Phoenician. No one even implied that Greek or Latin was Semitic.
　

Ben Sinai, you will notice that this particular sub-forum is dedicated to archaeology--not myth. The history myths of the Hebrews have their place in academic study, but they are not historical events, and have little or no place in an achaeological discussion.

　
To me they are not myth and I have use for them as they are to me a historical record. You act as if you had never heard of an Archaeologist that had used the bible.
　

Probably because you expect the evidence to follow the myth. I am sorry, but it does not.

　
Really? And your proof is?