Genetic evidence links Jews to their ancient tribe

JERUSALEM (November 20) - Genetic evidence continues to provide additional proof to the claims that the Jewish people are descended from a common ancient Israelite father: Despite being separated for over 1,000 years, Sephardi Jews of North African origin are genetically indistinguishable from their brethren from Iraq, according to The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

They also proved that Sephardi Jews are very close genetically to the Jews of Kurdistan, and only slight differences exist between these two groups and Ashkenazi Jews from Europe.

These conclusions are reached in an article published recently in the American Journal of Human Genetics and written by Prof. Ariella Oppenheim of the Hebrew University (HU) and Hadassah-University Hospital in Ein Kerem.

Others involved are German doctoral student Almut Nebel, Dr. Marina Faerman of HU, Dr. Dvora Filon of Hadassah-University Hospital, and other colleagues from Germany and India.

The researchers conducted blood tests of Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Kurdish Jews and examined their Y chromosomes, which are carried only by males. They then compared them with those of various Arab groups - Palestinians, Beduins, Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese - as well as to non-Arab populations from Transcaucasia - Turks, Armenians and Moslem Kurds.

The study is based on 526 Y chromosomes typed by the Israeli team and additional data on 1,321 individuals from 12 populations. The typing of the Jewish groups was performed at the National Genome Center at HU's Silberman Institute of Life Sciences.

The Fertile Crescent of the Middle East was one of the few centers in which the transition from hunting-gathering to permanent settlement and agriculture took place. Genetic studies suggest that migrating Neolithic farmers dispersed their technological innovations and domesticated animals from the Middle East towards Europe, North Africa and Southwest Asia.

Studies of Y chromosomes have become powerful tools for the investigation of the genetic history of males, since these chromosomes are transmitted from fathers to sons.

Surprisingly, the study shows a closer genetic affinity by Jews to the non-Jewish, non-Arab populations in the northern part of the Middle East than to Arabs. These findings are consistent with known cultural links that existed among populations in the Fertile Crescent in early history, and indicate that the Jews are direct descendants of the early Middle Eastern core populations, which later divided into distinct ethnic groups speaking different languages.

Previous investigations by the HU researchers suggested a common origin for Jewish and non-Jewish populations living in the Middle East. The current study refines and delineates that connection.

It is believed that the majority of today's Jews - not including converts and non-Jews with whom Jews intermarried - descended from the ancient Israelis that lived in the historic Land of Israel until the destruction of the Second Temple and their dispersal into the Diaspora.

The researchers say that a genetic analysis of the chromosomes of Jews from various countries show that there was practically no genetic intermixing between them and the host populations among which they were scattered during their dispersion - whether in Eastern Europe, Spain, Portugal or North Africa.

A particularly intriguing case illustrating this is that of the Kurdish Jews, said to be the descendants of the Ten Tribes of Israel who were exiled in 723 BCE. to the area known today as Kurdistan, located in Northern Iraq, Iran and Eastern Turkey. They continued to live there as a separate entity until their immigration to Israel in the 1950s. The Kurdish Jews of today show a much greater affinity to their fellow Jews elsewhere than to the Kurdish Moslems.

Stop the presses! ALS has an opinion:

You are a moron.

Again, ALS resorts to ad hominum attacks. We have been around this tree before.

You stated clearly that our sources of information are from nazi sources.

No, ALS, I stated clearly where these cited sources (which apparently you claim as "our sources", so now I WILL include you in the proponents of this vileness) were being sold. I also posted the OTHER products among which Haberman's book originally entitled (before being renamed to be more politically acceptable) "Tracing our WHITE Ancestors." (Do I smell a racist agenda here???) The bookstores and websites SELLING Haberman's book are the ones who display it next to swastikas, racist literature, holocaust denial tracts, and other discredited ideological claptrap. The other two site where I found Haberman's book offered were Christian Identity and Kingdom Identity Ministries bookshop... both of which espouse White Supremacist ideology.

Hence, you are a moron.

Since your original premise is in error as I have just demonstrated, your conclusion about my mental ability is also in error.

Obsess elsewhere, and stay off the skinhead sites, they are screwing with your mind(what little there is).

Oh, your wit is so scintilating , ALS.

(Not!)

This is the second or third time you have accused me of "obsessing" on FreeRepublic. Exposing psuedo-history, its false prophets and fraudulent scholarship is not an obsession; it is merely the pursuit of the truth. I will continue to hoist the blowhards of psuedo-scholarship and psuedo-science on their own petards whenever I see it being pushed as "fact" and "uncontrovertable" truth. Everyone is entitled to an opinion... but those of qualified scholars carry more weight than those of agenda driven theorists who do not understand the evidence they are perusing. If they are impeachable, I will impeach them.

It was not I who posted these books as "authoritative" sources for the Lost Tribe theory, it was the Lost Tribe advocates that visited the "skinhead" sites, bought these books, read them, believed their tripe, and then decided that FreeRepublic would be a good place to spread their "theory." I merely challenged them to prove their case.

I challenge YOU to prove it... but you will have to use much better sources than E. Howard Capt, J. C. Gawler, E.R. Dickey, George F. Jowett, J.H. Allen, Mrs. Sydney Bristowe and R.W. Morgan, all of whom fail to demonstrate they have the education, knowledge, research background, or credibility to be believed or given ANY weight at all.

A. You don't know my position, so don't clump me in with your personal dogma validation crusade.
B. I see you let others do your thinking.
C. What's been stated is that moron assumed me and several others are members of white supremecy groups, simply because they happen to MAYBE hold a few points of belief that MAYBE someone else has. Your logic has some severe flaws. Let's apply it. Coalition forces invade and free the Iraqis and in so doing remove the government. The people being free, loot and pillage. Therefore using your logic, the Coalition advocates looting, lawlessness and pillaging. Might as well toss in murder since someone is bound to be murdered with all that freedom running around.
I believe they call it guilt by association.
D. It's a no brainer that if the ten lost tribes did migrate to predominately "white" regions, then white supremacy groups would capitalize on that fact. Then for you and your clique to reverse engineer that to say anyone that believed any portion of the same therof is therefore an adherent of Aryian dogma is lunacy, irresponsible, a severe stretch, and most of all, revealing of the need to have your own screwed up denial ridden agenda driven group associated dogma receive something resembling validation at the expense of others.
E. You want to believe crap go for it. Lay off mine. My 2¢ is not whatever catfight you and your looney buds have gotten into with others on this thread. Take a moment to go back and read whatever I said before you use me as your unholy grail of vindication.

Who did you get to do your research? Who is in charge of deciding who is scholarly and not? Based upon what?

There is something known as consensus, and it's determined by a number of factors, among them peer review and established reputations. While there is certainly an element of subjectivity at work, when you have a theory that doesn't have a lot of support, you must either conclude that the theory doesn't pass mucter, or that everyone else is wrong. While the latter is sometimes true, it isn't true very often.

First off I responded to the article "Genetic evidence links Jews ancient tribe", dumped at the end was a tiny little tid bit about the "ten tribes".

Right, that would be this post...

To: Asher

The Ten Tribes, (House of Israel) were taken by the Assrian King, North over the Caucasus Mountains, later into Europe.

That is where the word Caucasian came from.

The House of Judah (two tribes) went into captivity to Babylon.

The two Houses have not been rejoined.

There is no proof or basis to claim that the Kurdish Jews are the Ten Tribes.

6 posted on 04/11/2003 5:51 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

At which point, you were asked for linguistic or genetic evidence. You respond misunderstandings about how genetics works. Like...

Now, without the body of Jacob/Israel there is no proof that can be legally claimed by "ANYBODY", I don't care what they call themselves today, to say that they are from the tribes of Jacob/Israel.

This is all untrue.You don't need the body of Jacob to establish genetic relationships, just as you don't need DNA from your parents to establish a genetic relationship between you and your parents. Your premise is false, and is of no use in supporting your subsequent conclusions.

I was asked to give some sources. Now obviously, being unaware of the "agenda", by many here stupid me listed some books that described what others have written.

Obviously, you did not read what I said before the list and after the list that if the books went against what is WRITTEN, the Word is correct.

Why do the sources you list show up on so many anti-Semitic websites?
Where did you get that list?
Have you read the titles you listed?
Why did you list Bullinger, who doesn't show up on the hate sites and says not one word about the Lost Tribes of European Caucasians?

Again it is Written those "Ten Tribes" were sent into captivity by the Assrian King, they would be scattered to the four corners, would be a great nation, and yet they would not know who they are. Now you figure that out.

Are we to understand that anyone not realizing they are descended from the Ten Tribes, actually is? If not, then there is no point to this comment. If so, then everyone on Earth except the Jews is descended from the Lost Tribes.

Many use the Bible itself to make their own way, do you discredit it and its scholars, who educated them.

One at a time. You've been promoting a theory for the fate of the Ten Lost Tribes that is unsupported by the Bible. Your subsequent sources are either not pertinent (like Bullinger) at best, or questionable screeds of dubious scholarship from a handful of people of rather uncertain credibility.
While you may not have been aware of this before you posted on this thread, that is now no longer true. One of the risks, and benefits, of an internet forum like Free Republic is that we have the opportunity to test our arguments and learn their weaknesses.
I engaged you in this conversation because I'd seen others take your position in the past, and was curious to see if you were going to cite the same uncompelling sources. You did.
Now, you either need to change your position or find new sources to support it.

Credibility, now you want to talk credibility, where is yours.

My credibility is in better shape than your sources. My research can be replicated and confirmed. Theirs cannot.

Have you read the Bible, know those places where "man" has been allowed to twist a little here and there, change words.

Yes I have read the Bible, from cover to cover, several times, several versions. Which version do you think is the right version? Is it in English? Do you think that maybe the Old Testament in Hebrew might be a little more accurate than an English translation? How about the original New Testament in Aramaic and Greek? Might there be more information to be found in the original language versions than in a modern English translation? ALS and I have gone around this tree before as well... and I demonstrated far more knowledge than he on original words and usages.

I think not else you would not be so desperate to change the subject.

Who is trying to change the subject. I have not challenged the Bible in even one tittle or iota. I have challenged the proponents of a theory that has very little evidence to produce the evidence. You produced a list of books and authors as "evidence" and I proceded to impeach that list and demonstrate that they could not be given any credence.

"What is going far beyond obvious research"?

The initial searches using multiple search engines resulted in links to primarily neo-nazi, white-supremacy, and Christian Identity sites. On the chance that this was a fluke, I also visited mainstream book sellers, antiquarian book sellers, historical sites for the subject matter, and searched for other hints found in the blurbs I found for the cited books. In almost every case I did NOT find these books being sold by anyone other than the ones found on the original searches. I searched by the authors name, the book titles, publishers, subject matter and various permutations of each... trying to eliminate any possible omission.

Who did you get to do your research?

I do my own research. Why should I get someone else to do it for me? I prefer to check the facts from original sources. It is sometimes surprising how some "facts" don't check out. I especially go after "facts" that are contrary to what I have learned and read in over 50 years of life. I want to know if there is something new that can be supported. In this instance, when I went looking, there was no "there" there... except at site who's owners were likely to be people who have a racist agenda.

Who is in charge of deciding who is scholarly and not? Based upon what?

There are accepted standards of scholarly research and discussion. Primarily the evidence must be SOURCED and, if from original research, REPRODUCEABLE. The sources must come from credible researchers and scholars. The original data must be available for examination. Facts must be checkable. Cited sources must be authoritative and usually peer-reviewed.

"Agenda" that word has an implication, so give your own agenda, what is your motivation?

My agenda is the truth... This subject has been many times raised and presented as factual... despite numerous debunkings. Each time, the proponents have FAILED to provide any evidence other than a list of books by these same discredited and amatuerish psuedo-scholars. My agenda is to discredit the bunkum artists that have been pushing this psuedo-history which has its provenance in the revisionism of the accepted history of Europe.You have not discredited anything but yourself, by jumping in the middle of a discussion without anymore proof to the subject matter than anyone else.

Pardon me, but I provided proof of the lack of credibility of your sources. That is far more proof than they can offer. Can you tell me why your source E. Raymond Capt claims a degree from a college that never existed where he said it was, an honor from a non-existant "Accademia" (sic), and a teaching credential for a subject not recognized by the credentialling agency? If he cannot prove himself a bonefide scholar, why should ANY of us believe a word he says? Dishonest in one thing, unbelievable in all. All I am asking for is honest evidence for your premise.

Good question.

First please give me the scripture that uses your words "the chosen people".

Shift the location of Jerusalem, NO WAY, that is where Christ will return at 7th trump. Ezekiel 16 describes what our Heavenly Father has to say about Jerusalem.

There are two Houses of Israel. The ten tribes were the Northern Kingdom, and Judah with Benjamin was the Southern Kingdom.

The "ten tribes" as a whole, not every one of them but the majority were taken captive by the Assryian King, went north over the Caucasus mountains. Their punishment for not following our Heavenly Father.

Now the Kingdom of Judah was sent into captivity to Babylon, and some of them went to Jerusalem with Ezra and Nehemiah and rebuilt the temple. Not all went back to Jerusalem, need to read Ezra and Nehemiah who it says went back.

So the rest of Judah and Benjamin went elsewhere.

Levi was not given an inheritance, they were the priest line.

These two Houses were to do certain things separately, and their rejoining is Written will not happen until Christ returns. So until that 7th trump and Christ returns those Houses remain separate.

Now the "Ten Tribes", as part of their punishment were to have removed from their memory WHOM they were and that memory of WHOM they are will not be done by flesh man. (DNA, linguists science, etc.)

This word remnant that keeps getting used is used quite frequently with the "remnant of Judah" and the "remnant of Israel". You will need to get a Hebrew dictionary to find what meanings it has and where it is used.

Now if the Ten Tribes don't know who they are, yet they are called House of Israel, Ephraim, in the Word, Ezekiel speaks to the House of Israel paints the picture of yet future events, don't you think it might be wise to read what is said will happen.

Christ said He foretold all things.

Some have a duty to do and if it makes no difference to you what is Written and Why then it is ok, not all have eyes to see or ears to hear, Christ words, reason for many called few chosen. Check out the meaning of that word "chosen".

Before anyone gets any ideas that I claim to be this chosen that is not what is said here. Those "chosen" earned that duty and it is our Heavenly Father's choosing not me or any other flesh being.

"Defining boundaries of Israel", interesting question.

Do you ask about man's boundaries or the boundaries our Heavenly Father laid out?

If you are speaking as present tense this age then time will tell what our Heavenly Father will allow man to do.

It is Written that Judgment of every soul will be between that individual and our Heavenly Father, so have no clue who will or will not pass that Judgment, not my business.

However, no one will go to "hell" without full knowledge being given back to them, Ezekiel 40 to the end give some description of what will happen.

At present time only one has been named that will go to "hell", destroyed from within, plus a group not named written of in Jude.

I hope this helps as it is very condensed, reason why to have a glimpse at the whole picture one must read the Word. Genesis is the beginning and thus the foundation upon which the rest is laid.

Now a question to you, if it is Written that the ten tribes are lost, don't know who they are, and it will not be flesh man who gives back their memory, don't you find it suspect when anyone claims that they know who and where they are, especially, when what they claim goes against what was promised to the very tribes?

Not only a lie, but shows your arrogance to boot. What other tools of Satan will you draw upon to crawl out of your smelly pit?

Are you foaming at the mouth, ALS? I have not insulted you. You choose to heap abuse on me.

On a thread on the Shroud of Turin, some months ago, you took the position that the orignal gospels precluded the shrouds authenticity because your Bible used the English words "cloths" and "wrapped". I provided the original GREEK words and their accepted definitions as well as at least five alternate Biblical version translations which you declared were erroneous because they disagreed with YOUR English language Bible. When you could not rebut my points, you attacked me personally... as you do here.

ALS, your opinions are your opinions. You are welcome to them. Just because YOU believe them does not require the rest of us to believe you.

With all your words, research, you still cannot disprove or prove where those tribes ended up and where they are today.

You have not explained the promises given to the tribes by name. More than the promises given are the prophets own words that tells the story of their footsteps. But again it is Written the memory of whom they are was to be removed.

You say truth, yet you look to the mainstream to gain credibility, the majority has never been right and they certainly are not today.

The version of the Bible I use is the King James, thereby I can use a Strongs Concordance and look up for my self meanings words have. Some words do not belong where they got placed. Translations used are not always what they should be either.

So you read Hebrew, the "original" with the Massorah included that locks in the scripture. You have not explained Christ's own words to the twelve, nor have you explained where those apostles went.

So what sources do you have to give credibility to what you claim to know? What is your source that the Written Word is credible?

You have indeed challenged the Bible without ever quoting a scripture. Peer-reviewed, if that is what you rely upon then you have not read that most do not believe. Some are sent strong delusions so they would believe a lie.

Again you missed in my listing of books on the subject of where the "ten tribes" went and were, that if they conflicted with the Word then the Word was correct. So you can hardly claim that these are my souces, I was asked to list some sources.

What I did not understand was the "agenda" of some to disprove, not prove anything, and oh so quickly you were summoned to give what apparently you and others consider "wise" counsel. You haven't even quoted a scripture yet.

So since you are such a learned scribe do tell where those tribes went and give "credible" sources that our Heavenly Father would approve, for his approval is what I seek.

If control of knowledge is not the present power of this age then why did we have a "pervert" as president for two terms.

Runtime error. Unfalsifiable arguments ("if"...) are a non-starter and will not compile. Try again.

Proverbs describes "wisdom" and where it comes from.

It sure does.

~~Reverence~~ Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: Proverbs 1:7

KJV, thank you.

It is our Heavenly Father's will whether one is given "wisdom". Some would not know what to do with the "wisdom" from our Father, check out this thread.

The "wise" (and absolutely vain) speaketh... </sarcasm>

This "day and age" is quite appropriate - the flesh age.

When were we ever in any other? The "flesh age" has been here since Eden. So you've spoken, yet have said nothing "appropriate."

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
--Proverbs 4:7
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
--James 1:5

Wow, I sure missed that direction in the Word. Rather the Word says exactly the opposite.

Since the Bible doesn't clearly say anything one way or the other about European Caucasians being the descendents of the Ten Lost Tribes, you have to look elsewhere to support that argument. That's where the concept of consensus comes in: to establish the credibility of your extra-Biblical sources.
The sources you've thus far provided are entry level Christian Identity claptrap. They are not reputable. That you are twisting in the face of that leads to the conclusion that you don't have any other sources than those favored by hate sites.
If you do, I'm more than willing to look at them. You will need something more than book titles.

You have spent so much time attempting to disprove, discredit, change the subject, rather than proving anything about where those "ten tribes" went.

No, I have no claims about the Ten Tribes one way or the other. The subject is your claim; you have failed to support it. I'm willing to look at information from reputable sources that would support your theory. As of now, you don't have any.
When you make a claim, as you did early on this thread at #6, it's your responsibility to support that claim, not come up with excuses why you haven't. I have zero responsibility to produce a counterclaim. The burden of proof is yours, as you are the claimant. That's an elementary aspect of the rules of argumentation.

As one of the one of the Christian fathers, Tertullian in his book written in 200 A.D. "Against Heretics" would say to all this:

"We who walk in the rule which the Churches have handed down through the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, admit that the reasonableness of our position is clear, defining as it does that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to Scriptures, since we, without using Scripture, prove that they have nothing to do with Scripture....They cannot be Christians because it is not from Christ (through the Apostolic succession) that they have gotten what they pursue of their own choosing...Not being Christians they have acquired no right to Christian literature; and it might be justly said to them, 'Who are you? When and from where did you come? Since you are not of mine, what are you doing with what is mine?' I am the heir to the Apostles. As they carefully prepared their will, as they committed it to trust, and as they sealed it with an oath, so do I hold the inheritance.

You certainly, they always held as disinherited, and they rejected you as strangers and enemies."

In the year A.D. 200, Tertullian provided an answer ti those Protestants who centuries later would attempt to argue what ever they want by saying "The Bible Says this or that." To them Tertullian answers "Who are your bishops? Show us your list"

Sabertooth provided such a list of their "bishops" and it was damning.

With all your words, research, you still cannot disprove or prove where those tribes ended up and where they are today.

Why should I bother? Frankly, I don't care... except when someone pushes their favorite group for questionable reasons including "Master Race" claptrap. It is you that is riding the Lost Tribes hobby horse, not I. I just want to see your evidence... from someone who knows what evidence is.

The version of the Bible I use is the King James, thereby I can use a Strongs Concordance and look up for my self meanings words have. Some words do not belong where they got placed. Translations used are not always what they should be either.

So do you agree that the English version of the Bible may lack some meaning and nuance that can be found in the original language versions? What makes a version of the Bible translated in 1611, and written with an ear toward poetry, a better Bible than one translated in 1934 or 1990 when a greater understanding of history and linguistics exists?

So since you are such a learned scribe do tell where those tribes went and give "credible" sources that our Heavenly Father would approve, for his approval is what I seek.

Why do you think you need to provide this information to the Heavenly Father? It seems to me that He already knows and the presentation of your research would be futile.

You haven't even quoted a scripture yet.

I have seen nothing scriptural yet to comment on or to quote any scriptures. I have no argument with the fact that the Ten Tribes seem to have been spirited off the scenes... The question is not that they are gone, but why it is necessary for someone to identify ONE particular area for them to have gone... especially as that "identity" is being used to attempt to exalt one people over another. If God wants them to be exalted, he would make it very plain. He hasn't.

Quite frankly, if someone could have posted some credible information on the diaspora wanderings I would be extremely interested. It has not happened.

Show me some VERIFIABLE archaeological, linguistic, or genetic evidence to back up the theory, then I would look and seriously consider it.

When the ONLY archaeological evidence is the claimed translation of 20,000 or so Nineveh Library tablets done by E. Raymond Capt that, for some very easily discoverable reason does not agree in ANY RESPECT with the reproduceable translations done other QUALIFIED SPECIALISTS, then his work is not valid. It is almost like Capt claims to have found the entire works of Shakespeare in the tablets while everyone else claims they are the Ninevah Yellow Pages.

The problem is not with Scripture... it is with fictitious manufactured psuedo-research masquerading as verified scholarship.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.