spin

The data in the article (pdf) cited by Rick Van Vliet seems to validly take us back a lot further.

And I have no problem with the social pressure to keep the women of the Kohen lineage in "purity". We tend from our different sense of morality to look back into the past and have doubts about the sexuality of some ancients, when the notion of virginity survived so well into the 20th c.

Yes, someone is kidding themselves there. The range is from 700BCE to 100BCE. I thought about fixing it, but I'd have to find the appropriate tags for biased interpretation.

This seems to me to be quite provocative data, as it requires explanation of the treatment of the Levites in the bible. If the Levites were just some guys (ya know), when was the tradition written that places the Aaronid line within the "Levite" tribe???


spin

judge

No I dont think it does. It merely allows us to go back further.

semiopen

I've been wrong before, but here is the logic.

A rational explanation of the tribes is that they are named after where they lived. The Levites however did not live in a specific area which suggests that they were not a tribe.

The Levite situation might be suggested in the book of Samuel (where I think the consensus is that this and Judges are the oldest in the bible).

Samuel seems to have definitely been an Ephraimite:

as well as defintiely a Levite; at least according to 1Chronicles 6:22-27. Where he is said to be related to Korah.

Chroncles is clearly post Babylon; this change suggests a different understanding of Levites at that time.

This Levi states:

This seems like a strong argument to me, although I can accept that an intelligent person might disagree. I've also seen the claim that Zadok (who we just briefly discussed) was a Jebusite

Rick Van Vliet

Yes, the Assyrians say so, carved in stone, the genetics says so, the Torah differences says so, and the Samaritan and Jewish history says so.

Rick Van Vliet

I think all written sources diverged. The question is how much. I also said somewhere along the line that We can be pretty confident it's been essentially the same since 2800 years ago, how much it changed between approximately 3,400 years and 2,800 is hard to say. No direct evidence other than the Cohen gene's 3,400 year age matching the Genesis story.

The Jews returning from Babylon were foreign agents, sent back to rule the new acquisition for their foreign masters. There were Jews and Samaritans already there, every bit as much Hebrew. And why would Passover not be honored by the Samaritans, it's in the Torah.

It's never been publised in English, and their great writer, Marka has been out of print in English for almost a century. Supposedly, the Samaritan Torah is about to be published in English in the next year. But I referenced a couple experts that have read both. The two main differences is that the main temple, with the Ark of the Covenent, was at Mt. Gezerim, and the Temple of Solomon was a cheap copy with a cheap copy Ark. And that it's much less superstitious from the viewpoint of science. Some argue there are no angels at all, no supernatural creatures other than an extremely abstract God, that has no body parts, and never says or does anything like a human. A lot like the Living Father of the historical Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas.

Gotta point out the linguistics and genetics. And how they match the Bible and Assyrian story. The genetics is ho-hum, a scientific fact, but the differences in the Torahs is fascinating.

A lot of Palestinians do have Hebrew blood. Particularly where the Samaritans were. The only way to stay alive was to convert.

But not near as much as the Jews, and not even remotely like the Samaritans. Yeah, a small sample, but to approach 100% it's probably close.

Rick Van Vliet

Uh huh, which is why I usually say "every male ancestor for 3,400 years, was a Hebrew, with no exceptions" which you quoted. But if they did cheat, and only with another Hebrew for 3,400 years, that's amazing enough.

Even weaker in that case, since half the time, one non-Hebrew son would be born. Something that can't be controlled by obsessively having sex with only other Hebrews.

Only if you think Samaritan women could control having a boy or a girl. They are amazing people, but not that amazing.

judge

Unless I misunderstand that paper, it is misleading to say that the genetics point to a date of 721 BC or near that.
Due to the stochastic element of the processes involved, the genetics would give a range of possible dates. The early 8th century BCE is a possible date for the split.
The authors of the paper, from what I read, neglected to give a range but preferred to speculate, that modern science may possibly back up the bible.

What we have is research team, dominated by Israeli's, who, unless I missed it, neglected to give a range of possble dates, but instead used the results to try to support the bible as an history book.

judge

You cant say any of that. You are drawing conclusions that are well beyond the scope of the paper you cited, and going far beyond what the authors say.

Keith&Co.

So, after saying that it was conclusively proven that they didn't cheat at all, now you're shaving that to careful cheating. 'Kay.

No, not control. But the possibility of cheating that produced a girl has not been addressed by the evidence you use to claim 170 generations without cheating.

So most of your ad homs addressed to people who kept asking how you supported some of your statements?
Probably should have been....silence.

DCHindley

Judge,

I really can't figure out Rick's POV, but that paper does not conclude the split occurred in 721 BCE, but that

"Based on the close relationship of the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes with the Cohen modal haplotype, we speculate that the Samaritan M304 Y-chromosome ["J"] lineages present a subgroup of the original Jewish Cohanim priesthood that did not go into exile when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC, but married Assyrian and female exiles relocated from other conquered lands, which was a typical Assyrian policy to obliterate national identities."

This whole genetic thingy regarding Jews, Samaritans, Cohans and Levites is utterly confused. The best I can reconstruct things is this:

Jews in general:

One of the most common Y-chromsomal (paternal line) "haplotypes" among modern Jewish populations is called the "J*" family of haplotypes, accounting for about 15% of total haplotypes found (there are several others). These are gene sequences which appear to have developed in the fertile crescent around 30,000 years ago, and are shared by a number of other peoples besides those of Israelite origin. Of these modern Jews who have the J haplotype, there are subgroups J1e and J2a. By measuring the number of mutational "distances" in the gene sequences they calculate the most recent common ancestors lived 4,200 ± 1,300 years ago (ca. 3500 - 900 BCE) for haplotype J1e, and 3,200 ± 1,100 years ago (ca. 2300 -100 BCE) for haplotype J2a.

Priests (Cohanim):

Because modern Jewish families claiming priestly heritage are twice as likely to have these J haplotypes as non-priestly families, they are sometimes called the Cohen Modal Cluster. However, having a J haplotype does not necessarily make one an Israelite or a Cohen (priest), it just makes it more likely.

Levites:

Modern Jewish families claiming Levitical descent should be expected to share the Y-chromsomal J* haplotypes, because the priestly families are said to descend from Aaron who was son of Levi. However, studies found instead that families claiming Levitical descent showed high frequencies of multiple distinct markers, suggestive of multiple origins for the majority of non-Aaronid Levite families.

For instance, "50% of Eastern European (Ashkenazi) Jewish Levites ... belonged to the Y-chromosomal haplogroup R1a1 which is typical of Eastern Europeans, rather than the haplogroup J of the Cohen modal haplotype, and most likely lived at the time of the Ashkenazi settlement in Eastern Europe, and thus was not really a Levite" (Wikipedia Y-chromsomal-Aaron). There may be a connection here to the ancient eastern European Khazar empire in which the entire nobility converted to Judaism in the 10th century CE, but mitochondrial DNA testing (tracing maternal lines) suggest maternal origins for Ashkenazi Jews in the Levant.

The second largest Y-chromosomal haplotype among families claiming Levitical descent is the E1b1b1 haplogroup (formerly known as E3b1), which "has been observed in all Jewish groups worldwide. It is considered to be the second most prevalent haplogroup among the Jewish population outside of the J haplogroups. According to one non-peer reviewed paper it has also been observed in moderate numbers among individuals from Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Samaritan communities having traditions of descending from the tribe of Levi, suggesting that the E1b1b1 men claiming to be Levites may have existed in Israel before the Diaspora of 70 C.E." (Wikipedia, ibid.).

Now to Samaritans:

There are just four families of them left in the land of Israel:

• The Joshua-Marhiv family, claiming descent from the tribe of Manasseh, belongs to Y-chromosomal haplogroup J1,
• The Danfi and Tsedakah families,claiming descent from the tribe of Ephraim, belong to haplogroup J2, and can be further distinguished by M67, the derived allele of which has been found in the Danfi family.
• The only Samaritan family not found in haplogroup J was the Cohen family, claiming descent from the tribe of Levi through the biblical Uzziel, the son of Kohath, which was found in haplogroup E1b1b1a (formerly known as E3b1a M78).
• A fifth High Priestly family formerly existed, claiming descent from Eleazar the son of Aaron. After the last High Priest of this family died in 1623 or 1624 without a male heir in the family, the High Priestly office was then given to the Samaritan Levite branch above. Technically, the subsequent "high priests" call themselves "Priest-Levites" rather than "High priests."

It doesn't look like some Jewish researchers are ready to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Samaritan Levites' claim of ancestry, as one says "no claims of ancestry of coming from the Levite tribe for male haplogroups outside of the "J" series can be scientifically substantiated because the mutation of haplogroups is so slow that no one coming from the family of Levi could have another haplogroup" (Wickipedia, ibid.). But see above where a non-peer reviewed paper suggests they may have been present in Israelite populations prior to 70 CE. I don't quite know why we cannot calculate mutational differences for this E1b1b1a haplotype as has been done for the J1 & J2 haplotypes.

So, folks can draw their own conclusions. To me, it seems that this same data can be, and has been, interpreted different ways by different folks to say a wide range of things (diss Ashkenazi Jews as non-Jews, deny their Levites any legitimacy, diss Samaritan Levitical priests of legitimacy, confirm the account found in 2 Kings (which Samaritans do not accept), or deny it and support Samaritan claims. There are also some anti-semite groups that like to diss all Jewish claims, as the data does suggest a greater diversity than what tradition might suggest.

Hi ho.

DCH