DNA studies on Jews

[technomage]

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.

Actually, your statement was ambiguous enough to make the status unclear. However, Ugaritic was not a precursor to these other languages: the Ugaritic texts use a cuneiform syllabry, not an alphabet.
　

To me they are not myth

It has been said that we are each entitled to our own interpretations of the facts, and I have no grave argument with such a statement. We are not, however, entitled to our own facts. In short, reality is not concerned with what the Genesis narratives are to you.

You act as if you had never heard of an Archaeologist that had used the bible.

For the time period under discussion, there is no supporting archaeological evidence for the Biblical account (and a copious quantity against it).
　

Really? And your proof is?

First and foremost, please use the correct terminology: "proof" is a matter for mathematics ad the distillation of alcohol. Archaeology deals with evidence.

Secondly, several threads in this sub-foru have discussed the lack of historicity to the Genesis account (actually, the entire Deuteronomic history). You can start here, here, or here. If you have access to a good library, you can start with The Bible Unearthed.

Please feel free to research this issue: if you have specific questions, I will gladly answer them to the best of my ability.

[Ben Sinai]

Actually, your statement was ambiguous enough to make the status unclear.

　
O.k. I’ll give you that much. At least now you understand what I was saying.
　

However, Ugaritic was not a precursor to these other languages: the Ugaritic texts use a cuneiform syllabry, not an alphabet.

　
One could argue that but I also see where it is called an alphabet and that it was used as a prequel for the order of the letters in the Greek and Latin.
　
This is a quote from AncientScripts.com ……
　
“The Ugaritic script was really one of a kind, for it was a cuneiform alphabet (old Persian really was closer to a syllabary). Clay tablets written in Ugaritic provided the first evidence of the "modern" ordering of letters, which in Ugaritic went like 'a, b, g, and so on, that eventually gave the order of letters in the Greek and Roman abecedaries. “
　
My post still stands.
　

It has been said that we are each entitled to our own interpretations of the facts, and I have no grave argument with such a statement. We are not, however, entitled to our own facts. In short, reality is not concerned with what the Genesis narratives are to you.

　
That of course all depends on whose reality we are speaking of. Reality is not something owned by one individual and can be defined by many in many different ways.
　

For the time period under discussion, there is no supporting archaeological evidence for the Biblical account (and a copious quantity against it).

　
I have yet to see anything that shows positive proof against.
　

First and foremost, please use the correct terminology: "proof" is a matter for mathematics ad the distillation of alcohol. Archaeology deals with evidence.

　
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.
　

Secondly, several threads in this sub-foru have discussed the lack of historicity to the Genesis account (actually, the entire Deuteronomic history). You can start here, here, or here. If you have access to a good library, you can start with The Bible Unearthed.

　
Oh well thank you. I will check it out.
　

Please feel free to research this issue: if you have specific questions, I will gladly answer them to the best of my ability.

　
Ummmmmmmmm.
　
You still haven’t answered my reply as to the peoples in question just being a bunch of Canaanites and not Hebrews.

[greentwiga]

I was surprised that no one referred to the Y DNA haplotype studies. There are two Y haplotypes that dominate the Middle East. The J1 haplotype has the highest concentration in Yemen but is the dominant haplotype over most of the Arabian peninsula. The J2 haplotype has a center in Southern Turkey, in the Kurdish region and spread everywhere that the first farmers spread. The Jews mostly have J1 and J2 haplotypes. Thus, the Jewish haplotype studies show that many people from many peoples around the world, but the original Jew was either J1 or J2. Since Abraham came from Haran and Ur (probably SanliUrfa) J2 would seem to be the original haplotype. Interestingly, the center for the J2 haplotype is a likely spot for the Garden of Eden.

[technomage]

One could argue that but I also see where it is called an alphabet

:nods: Yes, the Ancient Scripts website calls it an alphabet, but that's using the word colloquially: technically, alphabets use fully formed vowels. Like Hebrew (which, as you know, does not have fully-formed vowel signs), Ugaritic is not technically an alphabet, as it lacks vowels. Evidently the Ugarits were poor enough they couldn't afford to buy one.

and that it was used as a prequel for the order of the letters in the Greek and Latin.

That is only one of the two orders Ugaritic has been found in: the other one more closely resembles the order seen in the South Arabian languages.

More to the point, you fail to address that Ugaritic is older than Hebrew, and that the city of Ugarit was already destroyed before Hebrew truly flourished. You also fail to acknowledge the even more closely related Moabite, Edomite, and Phoenician languages. The point that I was attempting to make was that, contrary to your claim that the Canaanites "adopted the language, and some of the customs, of the Hebrew Yisraelites," the Canaanites were in Canaan before there was such a thing as a Hebrew.

That of course all depends on whose reality we are speaking of. Reality is not something owned by one individual and can be defined by many in many different ways.

There is only one reality: you are correct that reality can be defined in different ways, but some of those ways are wrong. If the definition does not follow the available evidence, shall I accept it as accurate?

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.

Hey, I remember Steve Martin, too!

You still haven’t answered my reply as to the peoples in question just being a bunch of Canaanites and not Hebrews.

The most complete answer for that question would come from Finklestein (cited in my post above). I can try to give a "Reader's Digest Condensed" version of his answer, but he has the full information including the necessary citations, archaeological digs, linguistic info, and (IIRC) even some info on the genetics.

[Ben Sinai]

:nods: Yes, the Ancient Scripts website calls it an alphabet, but that's using the word colloquially: technically, alphabets use fully formed vowels. Like Hebrew (which, as you know, does not have fully-formed vowel signs), Ugaritic is not technically an alphabet, as it lacks vowels. Evidently the Ugarits were poor enough they couldn't afford to buy one.

But seriously. Just do a search on "Ugaritic Alphabet" and one will find many resources.

:More to the point, you fail to address that Ugaritic is older than Hebrew, and that the city of Ugarit was already destroyed before Hebrew truly flourished. You also fail to acknowledge the even more closely related Moabite, Edomite, and Phoenician languages. The point that I was attempting to make was that, contrary to your claim that the Canaanites "adopted the language, and some of the customs, of the Hebrew Yisraelites," the Canaanites were in Canaan before there was such a thing as a Hebrew.

So? It doesn't excuse the possibilty of those so called Canaanites that lived in the Rhineland adopting the foremetioned language and customs.

:There is only one reality: you are correct that reality can be defined in different ways, but some of those ways are wrong. If the definition does not follow the available evidence, shall I accept it as accurate?

There are many realities. What is reality to a homeless person differs from the reality of a rich man.

Yes some are wrong and I bet your going to say that it isn't yours huh? LOL

Evidence huh? So you were one that believed the earth to be flat until it was proven? Seems doubting Thomas even had to be shown.

:Hey, I remember Steve Martin, too!

................................

:The most complete answer for that question would come from Finklestein (cited in my post above). I can try to give a "Reader's Digest Condensed" version of his answer, but he has the full information including the necessary citations, archaeological digs, linguistic info, and (IIRC) even some info on the genetics.

I'll look it up. I fear that it will be but a waste of time but hey, what else do I have to do?

[technomage]

Just do a search on "Ugaritic Alphabet" and one will find many resources.

One will also find many resources on the so-called "blind worm" of Eurasia--a legless lizard that is neither a worm nor blind. But just because something can be found on the Internet does not make it true.

Well, that sounds like "Ugaritic alphabet" is false. It isn't false: it is technically inaccurate, but quite an understandable imprecision.

So? It doesn't excuse the possibilty of those so called Canaanites that lived in the Rhineland adopting the foremetioned language and customs.

What precisely does the Rhineland (an area of north-western Germany) have to do with the Middle East?

More relevant to our discussion--how can one group (the Canaanites) adopt the language and customs of another group (the Hebrews) if the second group does not yet exist? It would be rather like arguing that the England of Chaucer's day adopted the language and customs of Revolutionary War-era America.

There are many realities. What is reality to a homeless person differs from the reality of a rich man.

You are using the word "reality" in a radically different manner than I am. Nothing wrong with that, but we do need to clarify who means what, or things will get quite confusing. What you are calling "one person's reality" would be more akin to "one person's circumstances." And you're quite correct: a homeless person lacks elements that are fundamental to a rich person's circumstances, and vice versa. However, each person has their circumstances within the larger universe, and it is this "larger universe" I am speaking of when I say "reality." In that case, while neither the homeless person nor the rich man may care about such things as the speed of light, or the fictional notion that some screwy rabbit missed a left turn in Albuquerque, they still live in the same universe.

In this one universe that we have, most events leave some form of evidence. In the case of Middle Eastern and Northern African archaeology, we have evidence (literally tons of it, considering that quite a bit of it is stone, mud-brick, and other heavy building materials) that the Hebrews did not come up from Egypt: they were a Canaanite tribe, originally indigenous to the mountains of Canaan. Two separate but related populations took over the area today known as Israel: the ancient kingdom of Israel in the north, and Judah in the south. We have evidence that the Egyptians never suffered the crushing economic, military, or social collapse that would have inevitably resulted from removing 2 to 6 million people from their economy. We have evidence that the Flood never occurred (despite the errors, arguments, attempted refutations, and sometimes downright dishonesty of some YEC or Literalist advocates)--not just a lack of evidence for the Flood, but positive evidence that it never occurred.

Yes some are wrong and I bet your going to say that it isn't yours huh?

Oh, no! It is quite possible I am wrong--what is not possible is that the evidence is wrong.

You see, Ben Sinai, in science, evidence trumps everything. It does not matter what we believe, or what we prefer, or even what better suits our worldview: if a claim is contrary to the evidence, the claim is wrong. End of story.

So you were one that believed the earth to be flat until it was proven?

Actually, had I been raised in a culture that believed the earth was flat, I probably would have believed the same thing. But what I would have believed is utterly irrelevant to the facts: faith cannot contradict facts.

Seems doubting Thomas even had to be shown.

According to the Gospel narrative, Thomas was given evidence--evidence he could see. While Jesus is reputed to have said "Because you have seen, you have believed: blessed are those who believe without having seen," he never said evidence is useless.

[Ben Sinai]

One will also find many resources on the so-called "blind worm" of Eurasia--a legless lizard that is neither a worm nor blind. But just because something can be found on the Internet does not make it true.

　
O.k. I see your game. And I’ll up you a …………..
　
From a archaeology site………
　
http://archaeology.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_origins_of_alphabet
　
As well as……………
　
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/612685/Ugaritic-alphabet
　
Even “Britannica”? Wow, you denounce the likes of this well known encyclopedia? Man you something else.
　
Oh and just in case you haven’t had enough…………..
　
A book entitled “A Primer on Ugaritic: Language, Culture and Literature” which on page 9, you guessed it, says Ugaritic Alphabet. This is a 200 and some odd page book that looks to be of a text book that they teach from at any of your so called colleges around the country.
　
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521879337#reader
　

What precisely does the Rhineland (an area of north-western Germany) have to do with the Middle East?

　
Well for starters it is where the so called Ashkenazi jews lived for centuries. You know, those white people that claim to be direct decedents to true Hebrew Yisraelites.
　

More relevant to our discussion--how can one group (the Canaanites) adopt the language and customs of another group (the Hebrews) if the second group does not yet exist? It would be rather like arguing that the England of Chaucer's day adopted the language and customs of Revolutionary War-era America.

　
Ah yes, back to relevancy.
　
No harder to argue than one converting to a new way of thinking. People convert to different religions and beliefs almost every second if not more. If a group of people that just happen to be direct descendents of the Canaanites and not the Hebrew Yisraelites were to see how the Canaanites are painted within scripture and so decided to start their own brand of Sinaiticism by adding their own twist on things as well as adopting those things that are already widely known and call this judaism then it could very well turn into a reality. Not to say firmly that this is how it occurred but the premise of the conversion is still of great possibility.
　

You are using the word "reality" in a radically different manner than I am. Nothing wrong with that, but we do need to clarify who means what, or things will get quite confusing. What you are calling "one person's reality" would be more akin to "one person's circumstances." And you're quite correct: a homeless person lacks elements that are fundamental to a rich person's circumstances, and vice versa. However, each person has their circumstances within the larger universe, and it is this "larger universe" I am speaking of when I say "reality." In that case, while neither the homeless person nor the rich man may care about such things as the speed of light, or the fictional notion that some screwy rabbit missed a left turn in Albuquerque, they still live in the same universe.

　
Same reality as all these other people that have talked about a Ugaritic Alphabet that you deny. That’s about as real as one can get on being really one-sided. The same big bang universe that you described believed that the world was flat until otherwise shown to be round. Some believed it to be round before it was proven. I am like these people that where I have a belief in something that science has yet to prove. Though it is true as the world is round.
　

In this one universe that we have, most events leave some form of evidence. In the case of Middle Eastern and Northern African archaeology, we have evidence (literally tons of it, considering that quite a bit of it is stone, mud-brick, and other heavy building materials) that the Hebrews did not come up from Egypt: they were a Canaanite tribe, originally indigenous to the mountains of Canaan. Two separate but related populations took over the area today known as Israel: the ancient kingdom of Israel in the north, and Judah in the south. We have evidence that the Egyptians never suffered the crushing economic, military, or social collapse that would have inevitably resulted from removing 2 to 6 million people from their economy.

　
Well if one reads the text one will see that Abraham and his nephew along with their wives and servants and so forth came from Ur and traveled into Canaan. It wasn’t until Yacob and his sons and servants and those that sojourned with him went down into Mitsrayim to escape the famine in the land of Canaan to be with his son Yoseph. Oh and as far as any 2 to 6 million. Where do you get this figure? There might not have even been a million but close. They were there for 400 years. These were also slaves that built the buildings and so forth and didn’t really compliment any economy. They left and life went on. One might even see a prosperous time being that all these had left and no longer was a burden on the local natural resources.
　

We have evidence that the Flood never occurred (despite the errors, arguments, attempted refutations, and sometimes downright dishonesty of some YEC or Literalist advocates)--not just a lack of evidence for the Flood, but positive evidence that it never occurred.

　
Which version? Some believe that it was the whole world as we know while others like myself believe that it was the whole world as man then knew it. People lived fairly close to one another then and had yet to spread abroad.
　

Oh, no! It is quite possible I am wrong--what is not possible is that the evidence is wrong.

　
Unless somehow the evidence is tainted by those that would have the truth hidden for their own agenda’s.
　

You see, Ben Sinai, in science, evidence trumps everything. It does not matter what we believe, or what we prefer, or even what better suits our worldview: if a claim is contrary to the evidence, the claim is wrong. End of story.
Actually, had I been raised in a culture that believed the earth was flat, I probably would have believed the same thing. But what I would have believed is utterly irrelevant to the facts: faith cannot contradict facts.
According to the Gospel narrative, Thomas was given evidence--evidence he could see. While Jesus is reputed to have said "Because you have seen, you have believed: blessed are those who believe without having seen," he never said evidence is useless.

　
LOL. Yep but he also stated………
　
“An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign”

[greentwiga]

You quote the Uragitic evidence of 1500-1300 BC. The Egyptians developed a system of Acrophones possibly as early as 2,700 BC and definitely by 2,000 BC where a symbol for a word could also stand for the first sound of the word (Zebra stands for Z) Apparently the Hyksos adapted it into the first Alphabet. An inscription dated to 1700 BC was found in a mine in the Sinai. Another inscription was found on a desert road used as a shortcut past a loop in the Nile. It is also dated 1800-1600 BC. Many scientists think that Protosinaitic inspired the invention of Ugaratic. If Moses did lead a group through the desert around 1450-1350 BC, he would have written in Protosinaitic. The Bible states that the ten commandmants on the stones were written in the writing of God. Around 1,000 BC, the only remains of Moses writings would have been copies and the two stones. The copies would have been written in the current Hebrew style, so the writings on the stones would have been a startlingly different looking Alphabet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet
http://www.historian.net/hxwrite.htm

[flaja]

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.

The Bible doesn’t identify the Jews as Jews until after the division of David/Solomon’s Kingdom into the southern kingdom of Judah and the northern kingdom of Israel. All Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews. Judah, the Jews, contained the tribes of Judah and Benjamin with some of the Levites while Israel contained all of the other tribes and the rest of the Levites. In time the Kingdom of Israel was exiled by the Assyrians and then dispersed when the Assyrian Empire dissolved without rejoining the Jews of Judah in any great number.

The rabbinical profession is generally inherited- if a man is a rabbi chances are his father and sons are also rabbis. There have been some DNA studies that trace rabbinical families back to a common male ancestor, presumed to be Aaron, around 1200 BC. Since the Levites were given cities scattered in the lands of the other Israelite tribes rather than tribal lands of their own they were split between the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, so I have wondered if finding the same rabbinical DNA in non-Jewish populations would be a way of identifying the destiny of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

[technomage]

O.k. I see your game.

Not a "game," Ben Sinai--a matter of precision. For commonplace discussion, it's over-pedantic, but for a specific and technical discussion of writing systems, it is as necessary as the precision with which the parah adumah is selected. After all, would you want to assume that just any common Hereford cow would suffice?

Well for starters it is where the so called Ashkenazi jews lived for centuries. You know, those white people that claim to be direct decedents to true Hebrew Yisraelites.

You mean, the Jews that the DNA study in the OP of this thread establishes as having being Jewish, not Gentile?

I am like these people that where I have a belief in something that science has yet to prove.

If that were the case, we would not be having this discussion--but you have already advocated a few things that science has dis-proven.

　

Oh and as far as any 2 to 6 million. Where do you get this figure? There might not have even been a million but close.

Well, if you read the text (Ex 12:37), you'll note that it claims some 600,000 adult males. Add their wives, children, and other dependents. Add the "mixed multitude" that was not included in this census. Do the math.

These were also slaves that built the buildings and so forth and didn’t really compliment any economy.

And who grew the cops. And who bough and sold. And who--if they had been there--contributed to the Egyptian economy, if by nothing else by replacing workers who were allocated elsewhere.

Which version? Some believe that it was the whole world as we know while others like myself believe that it was the whole world as man then knew it.

The evidence, on the other hand, already indicates a substantial human presence in North and South America, Asia, and Europe, in addition to Africa and the Middle East. Deucedly inconvenient for such arguments.
　

Unless somehow the evidence is tainted by those that would have the truth hidden for their own agenda’s.

Ah, yes, the "Conspiracy" PRATT. "The evidence is there, but you evil evolutionists are hiding it."

Hogwash. Come up with something or shut up.
　

[Ben Sinai]

Not a "game," Ben Sinai--a matter of precision. For commonplace discussion, it's over-pedantic, but for a specific and technical discussion of writing systems, it is as necessary as the precision with which the parah adumah is selected. After all, would you want to assume that just any common Hereford cow would suffice?

　
No, not any heifer but the one in which we were discussing for which I showed more than just some articulate articles on the internet to prove my point.
　

You mean, the Jews that the DNA study in the OP of this thread establishes as having being Jewish, not Gentile?

　
No, Those are what you mean. I mean the same people but they are those that you, nor the so called study of the OP, has yet to prove that they are no more than Canaanites from the loins of Kayin and not Hebrew Yisraelites from the loins of Shem.
　

If that were the case, we would not be having this discussion--but you have already advocated a few things that science has dis-proven.

　
Like? I have yet to be shown any proof to disprove a thing thus far. Just someone’s fanciful words and deductions.
　

Well, if you read the text (Ex 12:37), you'll note that it claims some 600,000 adult males. Add their wives, children, and other dependents. Add the "mixed multitude" that was not included in this census. Do the math.
And who grew the cops. And who bough and sold. And who--if they had been there--contributed to the Egyptian economy, if by nothing else by replacing workers who were allocated elsewhere.
The evidence, on the other hand, already indicates a substantial human presence in North and South America, Asia, and Europe, in addition to Africa and the Middle East. Deucedly inconvenient for such arguments.

　
We can do math all day but its not going to help. Not everyman had to have had a wife or children. I still put it around one million or so. Not to mention that just because you, or anyone else, has yet to dig up anything to prove it doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
　

Ah, yes, the "Conspiracy" PRATT. "The evidence is there, but you evil evolutionists are hiding it."
Hogwash. Come up with something or shut up.

　
LOL. Look who is calling who a FOOL. LOL
　
Anyone with fifth grade education can tell ya that the wool has been pulled over the peoples eyes more than a few times down through history and why would anyone with two brain cells begin to believe that it has stopped?
　
Everything that I have heard from you so far is either your own or someone else’s thoughts and feelings on what they have either read or what has or hasn’t been dug up. No positive proof. No first hand accounts. Just ones theories on what might have, or have not, happened thousands of years ago.
　
SHUT UP! LOL. Very mature and intelligent to say the least.

[technomage]

　
SHUT UP! LOL. Very mature and intelligent to say the least.

I answer according to the ability of the recipient.

Just as I have answered you.

[Ben Sinai]

I answer according to the ability of the recipient.

Just as I have answered you.

Like I said, very mature and intelligent.

[greentwiga]

The J2 Y DNA seems to be what you are asking for. Most of the Levites are J2 or J1, and J1 seems to be from Yemen. None of the Bible seems to reference Yemen. J2 centers in Turkey near Haran and SanliUrfa (Glorious Urfa) which the Muslims believe was the birthplace of Abraham. Christians did also, before Wooley's self seeking promotion of Ur of Sumer. This haplotype spread with the start of agriculture and seems it might even be connected to Adam (and Eve.) The problem is that the kurds, people who were related to Abraham but stayed in Haran , such as Laban, would have carried that haplotype also. The ten lost tribes were brought to that area. Ezekiel mentions the river Chebar which is now called Habur. Thus, the genetic identification of the ten tribes would be mixed with the descendants of Laban and others. Even if they moved south, they would have then been mixed with the J1 peoples of the Arabian peninsula.
the word Jew or German, Yuden, comes from Judah, the main tribe to return from exile. Israelite comes from Jacob who was renamed Israel. Hebrew could have come from Heber, something like the grandfather of Abraham. A good case can be made that it comes from Apiru and that the Hebrews were at least part of the apiru attacking Canaan as mentioned in the Amarna letters. The people tended to not use Abrahamite because they wanted to separate from Ishmaelites and Esauites who were also Abrahamites.

[technomage]

<snip>

Rather than hear bluster, let us look at the evidence, which will lead us to the facts, which in turn will lead us to the truth.

Back around 1000 BCE, one member of the Priestly caste (the kohenim) among the Hebrews experienced what in biology is called a mutation--a minor change in the DNA of the Y chromosome, which he passed to all of his sons. This change caused no outward, observable difference in his sons' physiology. Despite the claims of some comic books, mutation is quite common, occurs at a predictable rate in the DNA of all creatures on earth, and does not result in super powers. What's more, when a mutation is on the Y chromosome (as this one was, and still is), it is invariably passed along to the male descendants. This change is called the Cohen modal haplotype, and is far more specific than the J1 or J2 haplotypes Greentwiga peaks of.

So this man had sons who all carried this specific gene. Due to the relatively small population of the Priestly caste, and their tendency to marry members of other priestly families, this minor change was soon universal among the kohenim. The man who first had the mutation is commonly referred to as "Y-chromosome Aaron," though (obviously, considering the date) he is not the same person as the Aaron described in the Biblical narrative. The specific mutation is present in all male descendants of this individual, but not in anyone else in the world. If a man has that specific genetic sequence, they are a descendant of the priests of Judah and Israel.

Now, it's very important to note that last sentence. Customs, language, material goods--all of these things can be stolen by members of an outside culture, but genetic markers cannot be stolen, borrowed, spoofed, or lied about. If a person has, say, the gene that makes cilantro taste like soap, they can pretend it does not, but a relatively simple DNA test will expose any pretense. The Kohenim genetic marker is present in every single male of the Hebrew priestly line who descends from that "Y-chromosome Aaron", and is present no where else.

That genetic marker is present in the Kohen families of the Sephardic Jews. It is present in the Kohen families of those Jews who stayed in the Middle East, the Mizrahi. it is even present in the Kohenim of the Lebas (spellng?), the tribe in southern Africa who look like typical sub-Saharan Africans, but who claim descent from Israel, and whose genetic markers give evidence for their claims.

And that genetic marker is present in the kohenim of the Ashkenazim. This evidence--the presence of the Kohenim genetic marker--is sufficient for all three branches of the Jewish rabbinate, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. I would assume that it is sufficient for any who read these words and who are interested in the truth.

Let us look to what history says about the Jews of Europe. Calling the Hebrews who migrated to Europe "Ashkenazim" is a relatively recent phenomena: up until the Middle Ages (say, 1000CE or so), they were simply called "Jews." History tells us that they emigrated to northern Europe shortly after the Bar Kokhbah revolt, that the experienced varying degrees of persecution and tolerance, and that they did their best to live their lives, as all of us do.

Now, here we have Ben Shinai, who says these people are not Jewish: he claims they are Canaanites (while never explaining what Canaanites were doing in Europe, but that's another matter), who stole Jewish language, Jewish customs, and Jewish beliefs. But there was, and is, one aspect of being Jewish that (had they actually been Canaanites) they could not steal--they could not steal this genetic marker that indicates, without fail, whether or not a man is a descendant of Y-chromosome Aaron.

The accusation that the Ashkenazim are actually Cananites is false. They are of Jewish descent. What's more, they have suffered in measure far disproportionate to their numbers precisely because of that Jewish descent, as it was on the Ashkenazi that the Europeans visited horrors time and again, from the pogroms, forced conversions, imposed migration, theft of property, torture, denigration, imprisonment in ghettos, and centuries of abuse forced upon them by my Gentile ancestors. And that does not even mention that pinnacle of horror, the Shoah, of which of all the Hebrews upon the earth was inflicted primarily upon the Ashkenazim. For the Ashkenazim--the Jews of Europe, not Canaanites as your foolishness proclaims--the phrase "Never again" is not to be taken lightly, nor should it ever be forgotten.

The Ahkenazim are descendants of the Hebrew tribes--a lineage worthy of both great pride and great humility, but worthy, most of all, of being recognized as who they are, and not denigrated with the false accusations of Ben Sinai or his ilk.

You who call yourself Ben Sinai, I bid you to either recant of your false accusations, or change your name to Ben Zebub.