PDA

View Full Version : The y DNA haplogroup of the Prophet



Piquerobi
09-22-2015, 01:25 AM
Does anyone have more information on this?

Mohammed, Hashemites, probably related Y-DNA


Arab DNA forums and DNA Project admins reported that two test results of members of the Jordanian royal family (private kits) are positive for L859. The possible Y-DNA ancestor is Abdul Muttalib (497-578), the grandfather of Islamic prophet Muhammad (570-632). The haplogroup J1-P58-L147.1-L858-L859 can be observed in other members of Hashemites clan, founded by the great-grandfather of Muhammad and also within the larger paternal Quraish tribe. No descendant by classical genealogy (Hashemite, Sharif, Abbasid) of Abdul Muttalib has published positive testing for L859.
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Y-DNA_famous_people#Mohammed.2C_Prophet.2C_Hashemite s.2C_probably_related_Y-DNA

DNA could illuminate Islam's lineage
Rasha Elass
June 19, 2009


For almost 1,600 years, the title Sharif, Sayyed, or Habib has been bestowed on Muslims who have been able to trace their roots back to the Prophet Mohammed through intricate family trees, oral histories and genealogical records. But now an American DNA lab says it may have identified the DNA signature of descendants of the Prophet Mohammed, and perhaps the prospect of a direct, more accurate means of confirming or identifying such a connection.

Family Tree DNA, a genealogy and genetics-testing company in Houston, Texas, says it made the discovery after several clients, reputed by oral family histories and some supporting documentation to be descended from the Prophet Mohammed, asked to have their paternal DNA sequences mapped. "With these various samples, we were able to identify an overlapping signature in their DNA, a common thread for all of them, which is their genetic lineage from the Prophet, if their oral tradition is accurate," said Bennett Greenspan, chief executive of Family Tree DNA, which is said to have amassed one of the largest DNA databases in the world.

The company declined to identify any of the men on the grounds of client privacy, but Mr Greenspan said "several samples came from men in different parts of the Arab world". Genetic testing can trace the maternal or paternal line by mapping the DNA in the sex chromosome passed on by parents. The father passes on the Y chromosome to his son and the mother her X chromosome, so only male descendants can trace both their patriarchal and matriarchal lineage. Female descendants, possessing two X chromosomes, can test only their matriarchal lineage, also known as mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA.

In recent years there have been many projects attempting to identify the DNA signatures of famous people, tribes and populations that inhabit specific regions - sometimes with surprising results. In 2003 a group of international geneticists found that eight per cent of men in what used to be the Mongolian Empire were descended from Genghis Khan. According to a ground-breaking paper in The American Journal of Human Genetics in 2003, this meant there were no fewer than 16 million descendants of the 12th-century ruler living today.

The DNA signature of Marie Antoinette is also said to have been determined, meaning anyone suspecting a genetic link to the former queen of France can confirm their royal roots by testing their mtDNA. Such analysis can create controversy. When the DNA signature of Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, was isolated, it appeared to give credence to the theory that Jefferson, revered as one of the America's founding fathers, had fathered a child with his slave, Sally Hemmings.

But it could not be confirmed beyond a doubt because although Eston Hemmings, the child of the slave, shared the same Y chromosomal DNA as Jefferson, he could have been the offspring of any of Jefferson's male relatives living in Virginia at the time. The Prophet Mohammed had no surviving sons but his daughter Fatima married her paternal second cousin, Ali, producing two grandsons: Hassan and Hussein. Both have a traceable line of male descendants.

Because Ali and the Prophet Mohammed share the same grandfather, their paternal DNA is identical. Descendants can confirm their lineage when they reflect similar patterns. Most Islamic scholars agree there is nothing objectionable about testing individual DNA - and countries such as the UAE encourage DNA use in criminal forensics - but there are complex rulings when it comes to using DNA in court for establishing lineage.

According to the Kuwait-based Islamic Organisation for Medical Sciences, a forum where scholars meet regularly to discuss scientific and medical ethics in Islam, the use of DNA is permissible in certain cases. "A mechanism called qiyafah, similar to an expert witness, existed at the time of the Prophet," said Sheikh Musa Furber, a scholar in Islamic law at the Abu Dhabi-based Tabah Foundation. "The Prophet would send the people to an expert who can look at overall physical resemblance to deduce who might be the father. Today, instead of qiyafah, we should consider DNA testing."

But Islamic courts do not accept DNA evidence in establishing the paternity of a child born in wedlock, as the law typically considers the mother's husband to be the father, assuming she was not pregnant when married. There is another issue that arises in the Islamic tradition when using DNA to establish lineage: "Lineage, or nasab, in Islamic law assumes lawful intercourse," Sheikh Musa said. "But since a DNA test cannot prove lawful intercourse, it cannot stand as proof of lineage from a legal perspective."

There are a few privately funded lineage projects in the region, such as the Arab DNA Project and the Arab J1e Y-DNA Project. The former is an online public forum with chat rooms and shared information for Arab men and women interested in their genetic lineage. The J1e project, accessible through the website of Family Tree DNA (at www.familytreedna.com) is more specialised. It is a forum for men whose Y chromosome belongs to the J1e haplogroup, a genetic grouping of Semitic tribes.

J1e is the genetic signature of the Hashemites, a clan to which the Prophet Mohammed belonged. The current King of Jordan, Abdullah II, is a Hashemite descendant, and one of the better-known living descendants of the Prophet Mohammed. Just how many will test their own DNA to find a link remains to be seen, officials say. "When it comes to the Prophet, I'd rather live in doubt than receive certainty that I'm not related to him," said Sheikh Furber.
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/dna-could-illuminate-islams-lineage#page1

King
09-22-2015, 03:10 AM
There is a huge chance that the Prophet Muhammad was J1. However, Arab tribes usually include other Arab families during it's formation, so they are not 100% homogeneous. The TMRCA for L859 reinforces the subclade's Arabian origins, and it fits right around the time Islam began. So I think it is the best candidate of his family's descendants (the Prophet himself never had a son that survived past infancy).

While we may never know for sure (unless we dig up the graves of the prophet and his family, which is never happening), the odds still favor J1.

Edit: I believe he is 100% J1. L859 is exclusive to the Hashemites, which shows that this lineage for its entirety was always too pristine and prestigious to be found elsewhere. Just like how the Kohanim J1 sub-clade is exclusive to the Jews. Every other J1 sub-clade that claims to be Hashemite is found elsewhere in Arabian tribes, and its always too young to be associated with the Prophet. To be 100% sure I'd have to look into other subclades of haplogroups that claim to be from the Prophet, but since none is ever brought up by Arab DNA project admins, I don't think such a candidate exists yet.

J Man
09-22-2015, 03:22 AM
It would not be much of a surprise if he was J1.

RCO
09-22-2015, 12:12 PM
Arab Tribes
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Arab%20Tribes?iframe=yresults

Qurayshi
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/qurayishj1c3d/default.aspx

Piquerobi
09-22-2015, 01:21 PM
^ Very interesting!

The Quraysh & Bani-Hashem (FGC8712+, L859+, FGC10500+, DYS485=14) project:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/qurayishj1c3d/default.aspx


This project intends to track down individuals, and their Y-DNA kits, who tested positive for FGC8712, L859, FGC8703, FGC10500, CTS8308, FGC8702, FGC9581, and/or L615 markers.

It is believed that:
* L859+ individuals are descendants of Quraysh
* FGC8703+ individuals are descendants of Hashem
* FGC10500+ individuals are descendants of Imam Ali (AS)

Below is the most updated phylogenetic tree of the Quraysh (& FGC8712) Project:
http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=1398

Hashem tribe emerged in west Arabia (Hijaz) and migrated to the south (Yemen) or to the north east (Levant and Mesopotamia). Sayeds & Sahrifs with well known lines of succession tested positive for L859 and FGC10500 markers. Here is the historical and geographical distribution of current FGC8712+, Quarshi, Hashemi, and Alawite kits:
http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=1252

A Y-STR model of Imam Ali bin abi-Taleb (AS) was generated based on the 54 available Alawite kits:
http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=851

FGC8712 and its downstream SNPs are defined as a branch of the greater J1 phylogenetic tree (characterized by the M267 SNP-marker):
http://genogenea.com/J-M267/tree

Prophets Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismael (Ishmael), Isacc, and Haroon (Aaron) are considered major forefathers in the J1 phylogenetic tree.

The age of FGC8712 subclade is believed to be ~3300-3800 yBP (years before present). Individuals who tested positive for this marker (FGC8712) are welcome to join the Quraysh project.

To browse SNPs and their positions on the Y DNA, please use the ISOGG YBrowse Tool:
http://ybrowse.org/gb2/gbrowse/chrY/?

Caspian
09-22-2015, 02:26 PM
A Y-STR model of Imam Ali bin abi-Taleb (AS) was generated based on the 54 available Alawite kits:
http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=851


Then this haplotype could also be the model haplotype for Prophet Muhammad, because Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali were cousin. Am I right?

Piquerobi
09-22-2015, 02:31 PM
Then this haplotype could also be the model haplotype for Prophet Muhammad, because Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali were cousin. Am I right?

Yes. That's it, I guess.

Agamemnon
09-22-2015, 06:36 PM
The "FGC8712, L859-" samples from Eastern Europe mentioned here (http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=1252) are all Jewish and have their own subclade, J1-ZS2102 (TMRCA ~1000 yBP)... As to how this typically Arabian branch of J1-L858 managed to make it into the Jewish gene pool, your guess is as good as mine (remnants of Arabia's Jewish tribes blending with Ashkenazi Jews? Idumean converts to Judaism? Himyarite converts?).

King
09-22-2015, 11:50 PM
While I don't believe the Alawites descend from Ali, if they do descend from Quraysh, it'd be a huge shock to me since their sect is not compatible with Islam. But then again it shouldnt, because the Prophet did confront his tribe and threatened them all with slaughter, since they were pagans and did not care for monotheism and wanted him killed.

If the Alawites are true remnants of the Quraish, then they probably are the remnants of the stubborn pagan qurayshi tribesmen (the majority of quraysh were unbelievers when Islam came).

King
09-23-2015, 12:22 AM
Question: The term Alawite used here, is it used for those who claim lineage from Ali, or is it used for those from the Alawite sect? Cause I'm slightly confused what Alawite is referring to here (I'm thinking of the Alawite sect but I don't think that's right).

Caspian
09-23-2015, 09:09 AM
There is a large and famous sayyid family which belongs to Shia Al-Musawi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Musawi) branch of Hashemites in our village. People are praying constantly for this family. I wonder that are male members of the family really J1-FGC10500. Or are they hypothetical/traditional sayyids according to oral stories. But I believe that there are also non-Arab descendants of Muhammad. Such as Turk, Persian, Kurd, Pashtun and Indian.

Piquerobi
09-24-2015, 01:27 AM
The most common CMH (Cohen Modal Haplotype) is also J1-P58+. I wonder how one lineage is related to the other.


"Based on the DNA of today’s Kohanim, the geneticists have dated their “Most Common Recent Ancestor” to 106 generations ago, approximately 3,300 years before the present. This is in agreement with the Torah’s written and oral tradition of the lifetime of Aaron, the original High Priest and founder of the Kohen lineage. Further genetic studies have found that the CMH-the Cohen Modal Haplotype is not exclusive to Kohanim, and not unique to Jews. It is also found in significant percentages among other Middle Eastern populations, and to a lesser extent, among southern Mediterranean groups. A haplotype is a group of distinct DNA markers——neutral nucleotide mutations, which when found together indicate a lineage. These particular markers were discovered on the Y-Chromosome, which is passed from father to son, without change, thus establishing a paternal lineage pattern. All of the above is scientific fact, which has only become known in recent years. Using these findings as a basis, perhaps we can speculate and consider some implications of the findings. If the CMH is the genetic signature of Aaron, the father of the Kohanim, it must also have been the genetic signature of Aaron’s father, Amram, and that of his father, Kehat, and of his father, Levi. Levi’s father was Jacob who also must have had the CMH as his Y-Chromosome genetic signature, as did his father, Isaac. Thus we arrive at Abraham. Abraham was only seven generations removed from Aaron, a matter of a few hundred years. Genetic signatures change slightly only over many generations. Thus, it is very reasonable to assume that the CMH, the most common haplotype among Jewish males, is therefore also the genetic signature of the Patriarch Abraham. This would explain why we also find the CMH in high numbers among Arabs and other Middle Easterners today. These peoples traditionally claim to be the progeny of Abraham through his son Ishmael, who would also have to be carrying Abraham’’s male genetic signature. The Jewish Kohanim have maintained the Abrahamic lineage to the highest degree among the Jewish People
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/abraham-lineage/

King
09-24-2015, 02:18 AM
http://genogenea.com/J-M267/tree

Both lineages come from YSC234 (TMCRA 5900-5700 yrs ago).

wmehar
11-02-2015, 11:12 PM
There is a large and famous sayyid family which belongs to Shia Al-Musawi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Musawi) branch of Hashemites in our village. People are praying constantly for this family. I wonder that are male members of the family really J1-FGC10500. Or are they hypothetical/traditional sayyids according to oral stories. But I believe that there are also non-Arab descendants of Muhammad. Such as Turk, Persian, Kurd, Pashtun and Indian.

I would venture to agree, since most if not all J1-L859 happen to also claim Hashemite descent. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that is indeed the signature of the Prophet peace be upon him.

*takes off Muslim cap*

There is always the off chance that there could have been some kind of paternal/maternal foul up between the lines unbeknownst to Ali's descendants past Hussain/Hassan. I am doubtful, but I err on the side of caution. Considering that tragic events at Karbala, and the suffering of the Prophet's family I wouldn't entirely eliminate the notion that the true Y-DNA signature was lost for 'Ali (RAW).

Traditionally Quraysh/Adnan Arabs are descendant of Ismail who learned Arabic from Arabs who weren't of his kin. If Ibrahim/Ismail weren't Arab, then its entirely plausible their signature isn't J1-L859. Of course I'm lacking serious substance to say any of this as Biblical Ibrahim and Historic Ibrahim could be two very different things.

I'm not well learned but through some psuedo-research I read that the J1 Signature is most likely to have originated from north Mesopotamia near the Zagros Mountains (scholars correct me please), which builds a case that Ibrahim could indeed have been J1. However, Anecdotally the Prophet has attributed Adnan ancestry to other "Adnan" tribes (of whom also attribute themselves Adnan as their forefather). I've looked into the Arab Tribes project and others and have seen there are a huge variety of SNP's between "Adnan" tribes.. But I have not done due diligence to see if the differences in SNP's were just them being downstream J1-L858/L859.

Further, it was quite common in the Middle East (not sure specifically where but I'm thinking Near Middle East to Yemen) to divinate using Arrows. Especially during the pagan times; they actually used this method to divinate ancestry/geneology/adoption and other quirky situations. I believe it is even in a Hadith (someone please find the authenticity strength) that the Prophet's father, Abdullah ibn Abdul Mutallib had his fate divinated in this fashion (as you may already know).

It is also possible that someone is a descendant or distant relative of the Prophet without harboring the genetic signature Y-DNA J1-L859 (or the true Signature for that matter) in the event Y/MtDNA pervades the pool. Of course no one would have anyway of knowing.

I'm inclined to think it was the Prophets actions/deeds that made him Noble and great and not his blood... We all were made from dust, and back to it we'll go.

I1-Z63
11-02-2015, 11:16 PM
What about Jesus Christ?

V-X
11-02-2015, 11:21 PM
What about Jesus Christ?

Probably R1b as his father was God, and God is English.

I1-Z63
11-02-2015, 11:25 PM
Probably I1 as his father was God, and God is Anglo-Saxon.

fixed lol

V-X
11-02-2015, 11:28 PM
fixed lol

No he's English because in the King James Bible he speaks in early modern English rather than Old English.

I1-Z63
11-02-2015, 11:30 PM
No he's English because in the King James Bible he speaks in early modern English rather than Old English.

You win. R1b's are more peaceful anyway.

wmehar
11-02-2015, 11:33 PM
On a serious note, if Jesus did have kids, whatever Y-DNA signature they have (assuming he had a boy or two), is probably the fewest in frequency on the planet, if not non-extant.

Wasn't the bible transcribed from Koine Greek or something (correct me if I'm wrong)? I think he's Greek.. ;p

I1-Z63
11-02-2015, 11:35 PM
I think he's Greek.. ;p

Isus(Zeus?) Hristos... yeah sounds Greek to me ;p

wmehar
11-03-2015, 12:08 AM
God having kids and stuff with humans? Definitely Greek XD

Speaking of which, they have a J1/J2 population. When it happened? Historians have suggestions?

It isn't large but it's still there.

paulgill
11-03-2015, 12:12 AM
What about Jesus Christ?

Most likely a J1 but nothing can be said with surety without dna evidence. I personally am J1-Z1853* and my people still use Khabra as their surname and sometimes they will also name their town Khabra. Origin of this surname appears to be Eber[Heber], Hebrew or Khabur Rivers.

I1-Z63
11-03-2015, 12:20 AM
God having kids and stuff with humans? Definitely Greek XD



Everyone east of Greece is Greek somewhat. Aramic, Hebrew and arabic is ancient creole Greek :P

Ali16
05-17-2016, 05:47 PM
Interesting. Did you know that females can have offspring without men, but the offspring will never be a male. On the other hand, the Prophet Adam (AS) had no father, and neither did the Prophet Jesus (AS). الحَمْد لله

With descendants of the twelfth Shi'ite Imam running around in India and Africa, I would not be surprised to see anything. أستغفر اللّٰه

There is no true genetic forefather of the Quraish. The Quraish are what they were at the time of the Prophet (AS), with all the various haplogroups, plus all the imposters claiming lineage today.

As far as the study is concerned, are there any scientists here to confirm that it is highly unscientific?

wandering_amorite
05-17-2016, 07:30 PM
Obsessing over historical-era figures who likely existed, like Muhammad and Jesus, is one thing. But anyone who talks about Adam, Abraham, Noah, Shem, or Ham // is also interested in population genetics is living in dual consciousness. "The Y-haplogroup of Prophet Adam" is an incoherent idea, and not because "Adam had no father".

wmehar
05-17-2016, 07:37 PM
Obsessing over historical-era figures who likely existed, like Muhammad and Jesus, is one thing. But anyone who talks about Adam, Abraham, Noah, Shem, or Ham // is also interested in population genetics is living in dual consciousness. "The Y-haplogroup of Prophet Adam" is an incoherent idea, and not because "Adam had no father".

Reconciling religious with the historical figures are never a simple task. We all desperately cling to this genetic stuff in a hope that it could illuminate perspective into our faiths. If we're to accomplish anything scientifically, we're better off maintaining an objective perspective. The furthest person in history that we may discuss with a reference of historic record with regards to the Quraysh's ancestor, would be Adnan. It would behoove us to supplement genetic findings with historical contexts /traditions of the people we wish to know more about (Jesus pbuh, Muhammad pbuh, etc.)

Apparently, it was a huge thing in ancient Arabian times to have members of tribes expelled and adopted by other tribes from feuds. So many variables can throw this whole thing thing off.

Pegasusphm1
07-03-2016, 03:10 AM
Its Desposyni (family of the Lord), a few had been bishops in Asia Minor and Judea up until Christian Rome period then Greek Bishops had been appointed.
Early church writings have accounts of them. Looking at Davidic lineage. Many of the other competing Jewish sects (Pharisee, Essene, Sadducee) had those who claimed David. Then you had the Essene and Sadduce who claimed Zaddokite ancestry.

Babylon_74
07-05-2016, 06:26 AM
The "FGC8712, L859-" samples from Eastern Europe mentioned here (http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=1252) are all Jewish and have their own subclade, J1-ZS2102 (TMRCA ~1000 yBP)... As to how this typically Arabian branch of J1-L858 managed to make it into the Jewish gene pool, your guess is as good as mine (remnants of Arabia's Jewish tribes blending with Ashkenazi Jews? Idumean converts to Judaism? Himyarite converts?).

Qureish main Tribe descend traditionally from (Kinanah Tribe).According to Arab historians/genealogists some of (Kinanah) tribal lines were "Judaized" in some part of their "Yemeni" tribal history.

10169

Babylon_74
07-05-2016, 06:31 AM
What about Jesus Christ?

Frankly speaking I wouldn't be surprised if he was from a J2a Galilean genetic line.

Babylon_74
07-05-2016, 06:41 AM
Frankly speaking I wouldn't be surprised if he was from a J2a Galilean genetic line.


I would base my probable hypothesis on this source

*source:Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus-Jonathan Reed

10170

Babylon_74
07-05-2016, 01:20 PM
I would base my probable hypothesis on this source

*source:Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus-Jonathan Reed

10170

I assume Jewish J1-P58 lines were emptied from northern Galilee region and were exiled later to Northern Mesopotamia

10174

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_III

The genetic composition of the Neo-Galilean that is the people of Jesus the (Galilean) probably belong to different genetic line

10173

My Hypothesis assume a probable old J2a Galilean genetic line

Babylon_74
07-06-2016, 10:35 AM
I assume Jewish J1-P58 lines were emptied from northern Galilee region and were exiled later to Northern Mesopotamia

10174

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_III

The genetic composition of the Neo-Galilean that is the people of Jesus the (Galilean) probably belong to different genetic line

10173

My Hypothesis assume a probable old J2a Galilean genetic line

J1 Vs J2

10213

jatt2016
07-06-2016, 11:29 AM
Interestingly enough, J1 is found in the highest frequency in Sudanese ( 74.3% ) , Bedouin Negev and also in caucasus populations and yet they are not descendants of the prophet . It will be unscientific to claim that all J1s are from the family of the Prophet of Islam or Ali. Please note that all male descendants of Ali ( RA) were assassinated in the battle of Karbala as per the Shia historians and hence non of his Y DNA passed to the future generations and the Prophet himself never had any male child.

Source of percentage : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267

Babylon_74
07-06-2016, 11:38 AM
. It will be unscientific to claim that all J1s are from the family of the Prophet of Islam or Ali. Please note that all male descendants of Ali ( RA) were assassinated in the battle of Karbala as per the Shia historians and hence non of his Y DNA passed to the future generations and the Prophet himself never had any male child.

Source of percentage : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267

Actually this pretty inaccurate historically speaking.The (Husseini) Lineage continued through the only child survivor in Kerbala(Ali Zein Al-Abideen),and all his lineage tested +L859 such as Al-A'arajis and Al-Mousawis and Al-Zaidis needless to say that all the (Hassani) Lineage tested +L859 such as Al-Rassi,Banu Nemi and others.

Babylon_74
07-06-2016, 11:44 AM
Actually this pretty inaccurate historically speaking.The (Husseini) Lineage continued through the only child survivor in Kerbala(Ali Zein Al-Abideen),and all his lineage tested +L859 such as Al-A'arajis and Al-Mousawis and Al-Zaidis needless to say that all the (Hassani) Lineage tested +L859 such as Al-Rassi,Banu Nemi and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_ibn_Husayn_Zayn_al-Abidin

jatt2016
07-06-2016, 11:46 AM
Actually this pretty inaccurate historically speaking.The (Husseini) Lineage continued through the only child survivor in Kerbala(Ali Zein Al-Abideen),and all his lineage tested +L859 such as Al-A'arajis and Al-Mousawis and Al-Zaidis needless to say that all the (Hassani) Lineage tested +L859 such as Al-Rassi,Banu Nemi and others.

I am sorry to say but religion and science do not go hand in hand. As per the beliefs /religious doctrines, an Imaam is not human but a mixture of light ( noor) and some human elements and not to mention some super human attributes ( that the fire cannot harm him, has no reflection, can fly and wrestle imaginary creatures ) . So if you attribute a Y-DNA to him, it means that it would be against the believes of million of muslims. But again as I said the two do not go hand in hand.

Personally, I think it is unscientific and lacks proper evidence.

Babylon_74
07-06-2016, 11:57 AM
I am sorry to say but religion and science do not go hand in hand.



I was very clear in what I said and I chose my words very wisely.Your previous Statement were ((Historically)) inaccurate,and I gave you the proof.Other than the rest of what you said is an off-topic agenda.

thank youm and have a good day Sir.

jatt2016
07-06-2016, 12:27 PM
I was very clear in what I said and I chose my words very wisely.Your previous Statement were ((Historically)) inaccurate,and I gave you the proof.Other than the rest of what you said is an off-topic agenda.

thank youm and have a good day Sir.

Ok Sir, lets agree to disagree here. The disagreement is between :

1. Historical Perceptions
2. Religious Perceptions/beliefs and
3. Scientific knowledge.

Each one us free to believe and trust on any of three or a combination of all. Have a great day too !:)

Agamemnon
07-06-2016, 04:07 PM
I assume Jewish J1-P58 lines were emptied from northern Galilee region and were exiled later to Northern Mesopotamia

10174

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_III

The genetic composition of the Neo-Galilean that is the people of Jesus the (Galilean) probably belong to different genetic line

10173

My Hypothesis assume a probable old J2a Galilean genetic line

I'd be astounded if J1 was weeded out of northern Galilee by the Assyrians, unless they came in with DNA kits and specifically targeted J1 folks I just don't see how such a scenario could unfold. Moreover, the kingdom of Israel was never emptied, at best something like 1/3rd of the population (the elite) was subjected to deportation.
The fact that the Samaritan Marhiv family is J1-Z642 does a big disfavour to this scenario... On the other hand, J2a being the most common Samaritan lineage does seem to indicate that J2a's frequency would've increased as one went northwards towards Lebanon, so J2a might well have been more common than J1 in the Galilee.

Babylon_74
07-06-2016, 04:49 PM
I'd be astounded if J1 was weeded out of northern Galilee by the Assyrians
.

It's a genetic hypothesis based on archaeological findings (The absence of Galilean human settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III) and the obvious J1-P58 Jewish cluster from (Zakho) cluster in Northern Mesopotamia.

10216



Moreover, the kingdom of Israel was never emptied
.

My assumption was based on Pre-Hasmonean Galilean gene pool not on the southern Kingdom.


The fact that the Samaritan Marhiv family is J1-Z642 does a big disfavour to this scenario
.

This particular sample may fall in the category of Azd tribal lineage if I'm not mistaken.In fact all J1-Z642 and J1-Z644 samples do.Unless the Azdi samples are Arabaized Samaritans samples from South-Western Arabia?

Babylon_74
07-06-2016, 05:13 PM
10217


....((Much of the Galilee region was annexed by Aristobulus, however, there was some resistance from the Arab Ituraean tribes from the northern parts of the region. The terrain made campaigning difficult against the Galilee inhabitants. In the end, Aristobulus would eventually conquer much of the territory from them.[8] The Golan region was also taken during the campaign and Mount Hermon as well.The conquered inhabitants were forced to accept the Jewish faith, primarily, circumcision was forcibly performed as the main step to conversion)).....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristobulus_I

vettor
07-06-2016, 06:14 PM
Assyrian genetics via

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854/

has these as its top 5 markers

R1b-L23 23.15%

J1- M429 17.9%

R1a -M198 10.3%

J2a - Pages55 10.3%

T - M70 10.3%


clearly the bulk are markers coming from the north side of the Zargos mountains

vettor
07-06-2016, 06:17 PM
Assyrian genetics via

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854/

has these as its top 5 markers

R1b-L23 23.15%

J1- M429 17.9%

R1a -M198 10.3%

J2a - Pages55 10.3%

T - M70 10.3%


clearly the bulk are markers coming from the north side of the Zargos mountains

DNA analysis conducted by Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza, "shows that Assyrians have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population."[138] Genetic analysis of the Assyrians of Persia demonstrated that they were "closed" with little "intermixture" with the Muslim Persian population and that an individual Assyrian's genetic makeup is relatively close to that of the Assyrian population as a whole.[139][140] "The genetic data are compatible with historical data that religion played a major role in maintaining the Assyrian population's separate identity during the Christian era".[138]


BTW....since yesterday..............I cannot edit my own posts...................must be the upgrade [email protected]!

Agamemnon
07-06-2016, 08:04 PM
It's a genetic hypothesis based on archaeological findings (The absence of Galilean human settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III) and the obvious J1-P58 Jewish cluster from (Zakho) cluster in Northern Mesopotamia.

10216

You might as well add ZS227 to the list of uprooted lineages, since we have two ZS227 Mizrahi samples from Al 'Anah (Mohafazat el Anbar) so far. Anyhow, I don't think that means J1 vanished or disappeared after the Assyrian conquest.



My assumption was based on Pre-Hasmonean Galilean gene pool not on the southern Kingdom.

We're talking about the same thing here, the kingdom of Israel (AKA Samaria) was not emptied of its inhabitants.


This particular sample may fall in the category of Azd tribal lineage if I'm not mistaken.In fact all J1-Z642 and J1-Z644 samples do.Unless the Azdi samples are Arabaized Samaritans samples from South-Western Arabia?

The Azdi cluster belongs to another branch of Z640 altogether (BY74), their common ancestor probably lived some 4,000 to 4,500 years ago at the very least.


10217


....((Much of the Galilee region was annexed by Aristobulus, however, there was some resistance from the Arab Ituraean tribes from the northern parts of the region. The terrain made campaigning difficult against the Galilee inhabitants. In the end, Aristobulus would eventually conquer much of the territory from them.[8] The Golan region was also taken during the campaign and Mount Hermon as well.The conquered inhabitants were forced to accept the Jewish faith, primarily, circumcision was forcibly performed as the main step to conversion)).....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristobulus_I

Yes, the Hashmona'im forcibly converted the neighbouring populations (Idumeans, Itureans, Nabateans, etc), this policy of Judaisation was largely ripped off from the Seleucids' Hellenisation policy, the Jews emulated this after breaking free from the Seleucid empire. In fact I think there would be no Jews around nowadays if the Hasmoneans hadn't aggressively pursued this policy as it enabled the Jews to become a majority and outnumber their main rivals (the Samaritans), in turn this is bound to explain the presence of many lineages which look Levantine and non-Judean in origin. On the other hand, there was no large scale settlement of Judeans in Galilee, the locals (mostly Samaritans and Itureans) were forcibly converted, circumcised when needed, and that was it, the Samaritan temple on Har Gerizim was destroyed and the Samaritans found themselves surrounded by Jews (which was a constant source of conflict, not unlike the Shi'i-Sunni dichotomy you see today in the region).

Humanist
07-06-2016, 10:18 PM
Assyrian genetics via

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854/

I am not really sure why you are posting the above study in this thread. The genetics of ancient and modern Assyrians has no relevance in this thread. Even if it did, why do you insist on posting links to the above study, as though they are representative of the modern Assyrian genetic pool? Certainly, that R1a percentage is not! Anyway, if you would like to continue discussing modern Assyrian genetic data, take it to relevant thread. Thank you.

Babylon_74
07-07-2016, 01:43 AM
You might as well add ZS227 to the list of uprooted lineages, since we have two ZS227 Mizrahi samples from Al 'Anah (Mohafazat el Anbar) so far.

As far as I am tracking there's one Jewish ZS227 sample from (A'nah),But I am not sure about the second one.In fact The Jews of ِAnbar Province (A'nah) and (Hīt) are different from the Jews of Northern Kurdistan historically speaking.


We're talking about the same thing here, the kingdom of Israel (AKA Samaria) was not emptied of its inhabitants

I am afraid there's some difference. Again ,I was taking about the ethnicity of ((Galileans)) in Upper Galilee.Galileans and Samaritans are 2 separate ethnic and geographic entities Pre and Post Aristobulus annexation as far as I know.


the kingdom of Israel (AKA Samaria) was not emptied of its inhabitants


But the ((Galilee))- the region Jesus the Nazareth belongs- was emptied. I have to quote (Jonathan Reed) again :

((.... The absence of Galilean human settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III) rules out the hypothesis of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period....))

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10173&d=1467724011



in turn this is bound to explain the presence of many lineages which look Levantine and non-Judean in origin.

Thank you.I think I made my point.Now you can understand my genetic hypothesis of Jesus 's Aramaic people was based on the ethnicity of Post-Hasmonean Galilee.

In fact anyone can understand Matthew 26:69 reference now in a total different historical perspective:

((...“You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” )).....((“Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.”))

Babylon_74
07-07-2016, 01:55 AM
A probable J2a Galilean genetic scenario very similar to the probable Idumean YSC0000076 scenerio documented historically by Josephus Flavius:

“Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country; if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the land of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time this therefore befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.” (Jewish antiquities, Book 13, 9:1)

Babylon_74
07-07-2016, 09:41 AM
the ((Galilee))- the region Jesus the Nazareth belongs- was emptied. I have to quote (Jonathan Reed) again :

((.... The absence of Galilean human settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III) rules out the hypothesis of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period....))

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10173&d=1467724011




This is the Biblical reference((2 Kings 15:29)) for the same historical event :

((... In the time of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maakah, Janoah, Kedesh and Hazor. He took Gilead and Galilee, including all the land of Naphtali, and deported the people to Assyria))

Agamemnon
07-07-2016, 11:21 AM
As far as I am tracking there's one Jewish ZS227 sample from (A'nah),But I am not sure about the second one.In fact The Jews of ِAnbar Province (A'nah) and (Hīt) are different from the Jews of Northern Kurdistan historically speaking.

My bad, yes the other sample probably isn't Jewish... In fact that just highlights my point quite frankly. And yes, the Jews of Anbar were not Assyrian (aka Kurdish) Jews.




I am afraid there's some difference. Again ,I was taking about the ethnicity of ((Galileans)) in Upper Galilee.Galileans and Samaritans are 2 separate ethnic and geographic entities Pre and Post Aristobulus annexation as far as I know.



But the ((Galilee))- the region Jesus the Nazareth belongs- was emptied. I have to quote (Jonathan Reed) again :

((.... The absence of Galilean human settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III) rules out the hypothesis of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period....))

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10173&d=1467724011

The Galileans and the Samaritans were both descended from the inhabitants of the northern kingdom, Samaritanism ultimately stems from Iron Age II Israelite religion while the Galileans are Israelites who were forcibly converted to Judaism (which stemmed from Iron Age II Judahite religion).

About a fifth (a third at best) of the northern kingdom's population was displaced by the Assyrians, despite what Jonathan Reed claims the Galilee was never emptied of its inhabitants (he argues that the 1st century Galileans were descended from Judean settlers, possible but unlikely).


Thank you.I think I made my point.Now you can understand my genetic hypothesis of Jesus 's Aramaic people was based on the ethnicity of Post-Hasmonean Galilee.

In fact anyone can understand Matthew 26:69 reference now in a total different historical perspective:

((...“You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” )).....((“Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.”))

The Galileans were not Aramean, they were Jewish. As for the reference to his speech ("the way you talk"), the Galilean dialects of Hebrew and Aramaic during the first centuries CE were easily noticeable since the laryngeals had been lost (vowel-coloured or, more commonly, glottalised)... Exactly like Samaritan Hebrew (and other Jewish pronounciation systems of Hebrew for that matter, Ashkenazi Hebrew for instance), which is what you'd expect for a population which initially spoke the northern Israelite dialect of Hebrew.



A probable J2a Galilean genetic scenario very similar to the probable Idumean YSC0000076 scenerio documented historically by Josephus Flavius:

“Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country; if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the land of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time this therefore befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.” (Jewish antiquities, Book 13, 9:1)

The problem here is that you're making it sound as if the Galileans constituted a different ethnicity in the same way the Idumeans did. Clearly that wasn't the case, the Idumeans' Jewish status was constantly questioned, denied and derided, no Idumean was spared this treatment (not even Herod), on the other hand the Galileans were mostly of Israelite descent, therefore they were regarded as full-fledged Jews despite having been forcibly converted.
This is so obvious and uncontroversial that Jonathan Reed also acknowledges this:

"More generally, Josephus' ambiguous use of Galileans constrasts with his unequivocal description of Idumeans, Itureans and Samaritans as non- or half-Jews. He and the Jerusalem Council assume that a priest from the Temple would have status among the Galileans, and he writes that the Galileans regularly visited the Temple ("as was their custom," War 2.237 and Ant.20.123). Of course, Josephus' writings tell us more about Jerusalemite expectations than Galilean loyalty, but the important point is that Galileans had an acceptable pedigree in Josephus' opinion, unlike Judea's neighbors. In the rabbinic texts, although there were Galilean variations in a few details such as the calendar or measurements, their basic halakhic principles did not differ substantially from the Judeans. In light of the archeological evidence, one would suspect that the acrimonious rhetoric against the 'Amei Ha-aretz by the rabbis was not directed at Galileans in general nor a distinct Galilean religious character, but rather suggests differences due to social status. For these reasons the term Jews is thoroughly appropriate for the inhabitants of Galilee in the first century, as is the characterization of the Galilee as Jewish. In fact, the term's geographical root (Ἰουδαῖοι) accurately grasps the Galileans' religious roots in Judea. In terms of ethnicity, they shared the same socialized patterns of behaviour, and they were conscious of a mutual descent in Judea, dating back to the Maccabean revolt, the occupation of the Diadochoi, the rebuilding of the Temple, Babylonian exile, and beyond. To speak of Galilean Judaism or Galilean Jews is to add an important qualifier, a point Meyers's important work on Galilean regionalism stressed, but to juxtapose Galileans with Judeans as different, and to stress their geographical differences at the expense of their common ethnicity, skews their common heritage and obscures their historical connections. Galilean Jews had a different social, economic, and political matrix than Jews living in Judea or the Diaspora, and even among themselves held diverse attitudes, practices, and goals - among them those preserved in the Jesus tradition - but they all were Jewish."

Babylon_74
07-07-2016, 02:30 PM
yes the other sample probably isn't Jewish... In fact that just highlights my point quite frankly.

How ?


The Galileans and the Samaritans were both descended from the inhabitants of the northern kingdom, Samaritanism ultimately stems from Iron Age II Israelite religion while the Galileans are Israelites who were forcibly converted to Judaism (which stemmed from Iron Age II Judahite religion)

Yes ,this was a valid argument until the Assyrian exile.


despite what Jonathan Reed claims the Galilee was never emptied of its inhabitants

As you like.I understand your claims ,But unfortunately I don't share your personal thoughts.


The Galileans were not Aramean, they were Jewish

No body is questioning their "Jewish" faith 2000 years ago.The argument is about their true ethnic race at that specific time


As for the reference to his speech ("the way you talk"), the Galilean dialects of Hebrew and Aramaic during the first centuries CE were easily noticeable since the laryngeals had been lost

that Matthew 26:69 reference was of an Ethnic and Geographic resemblance before being a Philological remark.I already know that Jesus language was closer to his Iturean Aramaic neighbors.


on the other hand the Galileans were mostly of Israelite descent

All the way to Jesus time???. Umm I don't think so.


((...More generally, Josephus' ambiguous use of Galileans constrasts with his unequivocal description of Idumeans, Itureans and Samaritans as non- or half-Jews. He and the Jerusalem Council assume that a priest from the Temple would have status among the Galileans, and he writes that the Galileans regularly visited the Temple ("as was their custom," War 2.237 and Ant.20.123).

Religious status of Jerusalem High priests in the eyes of Post-Hasmonean Galileans and regular visit/Pilgrimage to Jerusalem temple doesn't strengthen or weaken one's ethnic origins.It's an emotional faith motivated/driven actions in my humble opinion.


((...but to juxtapose Galileans with Judeans as different, and to stress their geographical differences at the expense of their common ethnicity, skews their common heritage and obscures their historical connections. Galilean Jews had a different social, economic, and political matrix than Jews living in Judea or the Diaspora


Kindly,Enlighten me more about their common ethnicity.

I believe that religious heritage is one thing.Nobody is questioning here the first century Galilean religious pious/disciplined behavior,But ((Ethnic))heritage is a total different thing.

Babylon_74
07-07-2016, 03:27 PM
Kindly,Enlighten me more about their common ethnicity.



102311023210233

Agamemnon
07-07-2016, 05:05 PM
How ?

They do not fit in the same cluster, that's how.



Yes ,this was a valid argument until the Assyrian exile.


Not really, this observation relates to the emergence of Samaritanism and Galilean Jewry.


As you like.I understand your claims ,But unfortunately I don't share your personal thoughts.


These aren't just personal thoughts, none of the sources Jonathan Reed mentions sustain his claim. I wouldn't be saying this if it weren't the case.


No body is questioning their "Jewish" faith 2000 years ago.The argument is about their true ethnic race at that specific time

The problem here is that you assume that Judaism merely was a faith or a religion, like I pointed out earlier the only comparison to be made is with Hellenism, not Christianity or Islam. Judaism has always been about ethnicity, and this is still very much the case today. Moreover, you seem to be implying that the Galileans and the Judeans were separate ethnicities or, even, seperate "races". Clearly, neither is true.


that Matthew 26:69 reference was of an Ethnic and Geographic resemblance before being a Philological remark.I already know that Jesus language was closer to his Iturean Aramaic neighbors.


The only distinctive trait mentioned in this passage is the Galilean accent, there are no references to ethnicity or race:

μετὰ μικρὸν δὲ προσελθόντες οἱ ἑστῶτες εἶπον τῷ Πέτρῳ, Ἀληθῶς καὶ σὺ ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶ, καὶ γὰρ ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ.

After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away.”

Also, we don't really know which language the Itureans spoke, it could've been Aramaic, it could've been Old Arabic, we really don't know at this point.



All the way to Jesus time???. Umm I don't think so.


All the way to the first centuries CE, yes. Like I said, the northern kingdom was not emptied of its inhabitants and, assuming that Jonathan Reed's assertions are correct (which isn't the case), the Galilee could only have been repopulated by the neighbouring Israelites who were not subjected to deportation (that's the most parsimonious explanation).



Religious status of Jerusalem High priests in the eyes of Post-Hasmonean Galileans and regular visit/Pilgrimage to Jerusalem temple doesn't strengthen or weaken one's ethnic origins.It's an emotional faith motivated/driven actions in my humble opinion.

Not quite, like I said Herod himself was despised because of his Idumean origins. Had the Galileans been a separate ethnicity like the Idumeans, I can assure you the Pharisees and generations of rabbis after them would've seized this opportunity to question Jesus' lineage and lob accusations of charlatanry at him. Heck, several Jewish sources depict him as the bastard son of a non-Jew (usually a legionary named "Panthera") so here you have it. There's no way they could've missed this, especially considering the fact that he claimed descent from king David.


Kindly,Enlighten me more about their common ethnicity.

I believe that religious heritage is one thing.Nobody is questioning here the first century Galilean religious pious/disciplined behavior,But ((Ethnic))heritage is a total different thing.

Did you not read the passage I quoted? Again, Judaism never was a mere faith, it always was a matter of ethnicity and, more to the point, of pedigree. The entry in Judaism was biological, this is why the Idumeans were not regarded as Jewish by a vast majority of Jews, the only thing which allowed them to blend in and pass unnoticed was the diaspora coupled with the destruction of the temple.
There's a reason why the Romans hanged a sign reading "King of the Jews" on Jesus' cross, had the Galileans been a different ethnic group they simply would've hung a sign reading "King of the Galileans". So it's quite clear that Galilean Jews were of Israelite descent, much like their Samaritan neighbours.

wmehar
07-11-2016, 01:57 PM
I am sorry to say but religion and science do not go hand in hand. As per the beliefs /religious doctrines, an Imaam is not human but a mixture of light ( noor) and some human elements and not to mention some super human attributes ( that the fire cannot harm him, has no reflection, can fly and wrestle imaginary creatures ) . So if you attribute a Y-DNA to him, it means that it would be against the believes of million of muslims. But again as I said the two do not go hand in hand.

Personally, I think it is unscientific and lacks proper evidence.

Just a few questions about this statement, with all due respect, then whose Y-DNA do current direct male Syed's today have? The Hasani and Husseini descendants that are direct, are human and in fact have Y-DNA. I hope you realize the irony of your references to "proper evidence" and "scientific" findings.

I think perhaps I may be misunderstanding your statement, please correct me if I have.

Let's implement some fundamental logic here, the ancestors of the Prophet SAW and 'Ali ibn Talib RA/AS were pagans and kafirs (to a certain degree, few being monotheistic with very small if any evidence). Did their line suddenly stop using Y-Dna? What makes an Imam better than a prophet, if a prophet had Y-DNA to pass to their family? Y-DNA is what makes a human, a human man.

I'm just trying to help grease the gears and cogs so you can implement a thought process that's more consistent bro. These 12 imams had kids, and their kids had kids beyond the 12... Attributing Y-DNA to any of these imam's does not go against the beliefs of millions of Muslims, in the least.

If you think about it, 'Ali ibn Talib RA/AS had forefathers who had other children, whose descendants exist today, and therefore possess the same Y-DNA Signature. Alas, you mention that an Imam is a mixture of light and super human attributes, have you not read on the history of them? They were poisoned, and oppressed... If they had some super human powers, surely they would have used them to survive and spread the truth and good word? I beseech you brother, to rethink your positions. The other sons of 'Ali ibn Talib survived, along with their cousins of the Abbasids. Plenty of their Y-DNA Genes to go around in the world to test.

Also, logic should follow that if Adam was the first human born without a mother, or a father, and that we are all descended from him, then all of us have his Y-DNA signature (that has mutated a crap ton over the years).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Now the above isn't proving a being as Adam existed, but it proves we've all descended from one male 200,000 to 300,000 years ago (all current male humans) .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_BT

I don't know what you know, but last I knew, those millions of people don't all believe these Imams had super powers. That would just be ignorant.

wmehar
07-11-2016, 07:01 PM
Interestingly enough, J1 is found in the highest frequency in Sudanese ( 74.3% ) , Bedouin Negev and also in caucasus populations and yet they are not descendants of the prophet . It will be unscientific to claim that all J1s are from the family of the Prophet of Islam or Ali. Please note that all male descendants of Ali ( RA) were assassinated in the battle of Karbala as per the Shia historians and hence non of his Y DNA passed to the future generations and the Prophet himself never had any male child.

Source of percentage : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267

I think you need to consider how SNP's work, it's not that one is saying all J1 folk are descendants of the Prophet SAW or whatever. There's a subclade of J1 (J-L859) that's been consistently positive for those with Husseini/Hasani lineages. I've mentioned it before but there have been quite a few of Hasani descendants/children (as Hussein had 16 sons, not to mention how many 'Ali ibn Talib had for sons, not excluding other paternal relatives of the prophet.. that survived).

L859 isn't just the signature of the Prophet (allegedly), but the signature for Quraysh, and "Adnan" tribes theoretically. You're right in that it would be unscientific to claim J1's are all from the family of the Prophet, but no one here is saying this.

Hanna
07-11-2016, 08:49 PM
I am sorry to say but religion and science do not go hand in hand. As per the beliefs /religious doctrines, an Imaam is not human but a mixture of light ( noor) and some human elements and not to mention some super human attributes ( that the fire cannot harm him, has no reflection, can fly and wrestle imaginary creatures ) . So if you attribute a Y-DNA to him, it means that it would be against the believes of million of muslims. But again as I said the two do not go hand in hand.

Personally, I think it is unscientific and lacks proper evidence.
I don't agree with you science and religion do get a long, as God is the creator of science.

Claims of imams being mixture of light, super human beings, etc... is not what the majority of Muslims believe in. It seems this belief belongs to the shia sect. We believe the prophet and his family were normal human beings, nothing supernatural about them.

Emir
07-12-2016, 02:41 PM
There is no way to resolve this issue at this time. If you are a purported descendant of an individual, check your DNA. You cannot prove anything. You can only disprove whether two purported descendants are related within a relevant time period. As for the others who have no skin in the game, why do you waste your energy talking about something you know nothing about?

Pegasusphm1
07-17-2016, 07:39 PM
They do not fit in the same cluster, that's how.




Not really, this observation relates to the emergence of Samaritanism and Galilean Jewry.



These aren't just personal thoughts, none of the sources Jonathan Reed mentions sustain his claim. I wouldn't be saying this if it weren't the case.



The problem here is that you assume that Judaism merely was a faith or a religion, like I pointed out earlier the only comparison to be made is with Hellenism, not Christianity or Islam. Judaism has always been about ethnicity, and this is still very much the case today. Moreover, you seem to be implying that the Galileans and the Judeans were separate ethnicities or, even, seperate "races". Clearly, neither is true.



The only distinctive trait mentioned in this passage is the Galilean accent, there are no references to ethnicity or race:

μετὰ μικρὸν δὲ προσελθόντες οἱ ἑστῶτες εἶπον τῷ Πέτρῳ, Ἀληθῶς καὶ σὺ ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶ, καὶ γὰρ ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ.

After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away.”

Also, we don't really know which language the Itureans spoke, it could've been Aramaic, it could've been Old Arabic, we really don't know at this point.




All the way to the first centuries CE, yes. Like I said, the northern kingdom was not emptied of its inhabitants and, assuming that Jonathan Reed's assertions are correct (which isn't the case), the Galilee could only have been repopulated by the neighbouring Israelites who were not subjected to deportation (that's the most parsimonious explanation).




Not quite, like I said Herod himself was despised because of his Idumean origins. Had the Galileans been a separate ethnicity like the Idumeans, I can assure you the Pharisees and generations of rabbis after them would've seized this opportunity to question Jesus' lineage and lob accusations of charlatanry at him. Heck, several Jewish sources depict him as the bastard son of a non-Jew (usually a legionary named "Panthera") so here you have it. There's no way they could've missed this, especially considering the fact that he claimed descent from king David.



Did you not read the passage I quoted? Again, Judaism never was a mere faith, it always was a matter of ethnicity and, more to the point, of pedigree. The entry in Judaism was biological, this is why the Idumeans were not regarded as Jewish by a vast majority of Jews, the only thing which allowed them to blend in and pass unnoticed was the diaspora coupled with the destruction of the temple.
There's a reason why the Romans hanged a sign reading "King of the Jews" on Jesus' cross, had the Galileans been a different ethnic group they simply would've hung a sign reading "King of the Galileans". So it's quite clear that Galilean Jews were of Israelite descent, much like their Samaritan neighbours.

Have to remember these later Talmudic works describing "Yeshu", Mary had been written in the pejorative. I don't put that much stock into panther and hairdresser. The the Birkhat HaMINIM, in 95 AD cursing the Nazarenes and Jesus, the discovery in 1925, Cairo Genizah codex. You can glean information from these works, such as James healing the sick. On the other side you have documents such as the DIDACHE which instructs gentile followers to avoid the Pharisees. Following the first revolt only two sects remained Nazarene (Pella) and Pharisee (Jamnia).

I would point out in comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls codexs, with the New Testament you have over 176 shared passages found with the liturgy codexs, 19 shared passages are recorded within Josephus writings, and only 18 among all Talmudic works. The New Testament canon is 70% more closely aligned to the Dead Sea Scrolls than the later Masoretic. When Matthew discusses the Messiah shall be Nazarene was he alluding to 1QSAM a/b with the fragment N-Z-R?
You also have a similar messianic meal blessing within the DSS with the passion account of the last supper. Benedict as well has other scholars from Hebrew University has suggested the calendar portion of Passion account in John was based on Qumran Enochen calendar? John's account was written in 90AD as a rebuke to early heretical sects. The DIDACHE, Gospel of John, and Dead Sea Scrolls also share the "Two-Ways" (Its thought John the Baptist was associated with the Qumran community as some point, and St. John was also his student disciple before he followed Jesus).

Going back to Josephus histories, you had three major sects at the time with neither having a majority. There was no such thing as a normative Judaism of the day. Sadducee, Pharisee and Essene. The REAL division within Judaism happened far earlier, and not during the Roman era. Calendars are the key to all of this, liturgy of these sects are based on different calendars rituals and times. Separating themselves from the other sects. The book of Jubilees was written based on Enochen calendar, and believed to be a very very Pharisee work. You later see the Essene using this work and Enoch(1) in great number at Qumran. At some earlier point you have a major division. I suspect Maccabees revolt, when they appointed their own Priest-King. The Zadokites split, with some forming what later would be associated with Essene, and other Sadducee. You have the "teacher of Righteousness" in the Dead Sea Scrolls pointing to this division. For the Pharisees, the Essenes coined the insult "Seekers of Smooth Things". You have many families claims of Davidic lineage in this later second temple period, unfortunately they didn't have DNA testing. Romans did persecute these families following the first revolt.

We know more of ancient Jewish writings from the early church fathers writings, than from the Pharisees and later Rabbinical teachers who merely ignored or burned these documents.

For Saul / Paul I'm one who holds he is a Herodian by blood or marriage based on textual references within the NT. Not trusted by these Galilean apostles. Of all his letters Galatians is the most important, since it deals with "Justification" which pulls from the Genesis, the only, only other Jewish work that deals with this subject in all these ancient writings is Dead Sea Scrolls 4QMMT and its unknown author pulls the Davidic Psalms.

Given the textual histories, and roles of other figures such as John the Baptist and especially James the Just in other early writings I don't question the Jewishness of Jesus. But the late second temple period is not the late Bronze age. Given that Israel will not allow testing old bones, researchers are left with current populations from areas with known Jewish communities recorded from ancient sources along the old trade routes.

We are still left with gaps. Just like those missing spaces within ancient codex's. We can ponder, theorize, and so one but we just don't know. When one reads works by Robert Eisenman, Botech, Gordon, James Tabor, one must remember they have their own theories and mix them as factual, unfortunately. Needed a more even handed scientific approach in comparing these various competing Jews sects and their works.

Babylon_74
07-17-2016, 08:33 PM
For Saul / Paul I'm one who holds he is a Herodian by blood or marriage based on textual references within the NT.

!!? have you checked -Galatians 1?

((.... For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.....))




Not trusted by these Galilean apostles

Well this was for a different reason...

((..... Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.......))

((.....Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles......))

((....When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.....))

((.....When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew.....))

Pegasusphm1
07-24-2016, 04:21 AM
!!? have you checked -Galatians 1?

((.... For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.....))




Well this was for a different reason...

((..... Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.......))

((.....Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles......))

((....When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.....))

((.....When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew.....))

You familiar with Robert Eisenman? I don't agree with most of his conclusions related to Qumran and NT works, however he has made some very intriguing observations related to Paul and Herodians.

Babylon_74
07-25-2016, 12:12 AM
You familiar with Robert Eisenman? I don't agree with most of his conclusions related to Qumran and NT works, however he has made some very intriguing observations related to Paul and Herodians.

I'm acquainted with some of his and Géza Vermes works and I'm also acquainted with John Dominic Crossan and E. P. Sanders works.
Actually I'm interested to know your thoughts concerning the converted Galileans hypothesis.

David Mc
07-25-2016, 01:14 AM
You familiar with Robert Eisenman? I don't agree with most of his conclusions related to Qumran and NT works, however he has made some very intriguing observations related to Paul and Herodians.

For those who are interested in early Christianity, particularly in the context of "Second Temple Judaism," I would recommend N. T. Wright's work, specifically his "Christian Origins and the Question of God" series. It isn't written for laymen, but anyone who is reading Sanders et al. will be comfortable enough with Wright. The only thing I would say is, start with the first book (The New Testament and the People of God). He lays down his epistemological foundations there, and You will save yourself a lot of time if you let him describe his approach before you jump in elsewhere. I, alas, began with his second volume...

For all that Eisenman provides an interesting read, he's also a bit of an eccentric.

David Mc
07-25-2016, 01:24 AM
With regard to the Galileans, I agree that a significant part of the population would have descended from converts, but it seems as though there was also significant movement of people to Galilee from Judea to the Galilee about a century before Christ's birth. While the Galileans were considered less cultured than the Judaeans, and largely unsympathetic to the beliefs and the political aims of the Sadducees, they were never seen as a people apart (as was the case with the Samaritans).

Babylon_74
07-25-2016, 08:53 AM
With regard to the Galileans, I agree that a significant part of the population would have descended from converts, but it seems as though there was also significant movement of people to Galilee from Judea to the Galilee about a century before Christ's birth.

Absolutely,But even those Post-Hasmonean demographic "movement" to Galilee from Judea had very minute effect on the true ethnic identity of the Galileans .Well that was clearly shown in John 1:46 and John 1:47 respectively

(( “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked.)).....(( When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit))


While the Galileans were considered less cultured than the Judaeans, and largely unsympathetic to the beliefs and the political aims of the Sadducees, they were never seen as a people apart (as was the case with the Samaritans).

That differentiation between ((Samaritans)) and ((Galileans))can be explained to time factor. Aristobulus I annexation of Galilee wasn't an old event at the time of Jesus historically speaking,While the Samaritans case was an old "Departure" from the main stream "Judaic Identity" so to speak in my humble opinion.

David Mc
07-25-2016, 08:22 PM
Absolutely,But even those Post-Hasmonean demographic "movement" to Galilee from Judea had very minute effect on the true ethnic identity of the Galileans .Well that was clearly shown in John 1:46 and John 1:47 respectively

(( “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked.)).....(( When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit))

You have to know that drawing a direct correlation between these verses and the ethnic origins of Galileans is speculative to the extreme. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it is a novel interpretation. Nazareth was a backwater, and from a Judaean point of view, Galilee was a seething mass of sedition. The Sadducees, and to a lesser extent (Wright would argue to a much lesser extent) the Pharisees had found a balance of sorts in the context of Roman occupation. The former saw the Pax Romana as a golden age of peace an stability. The latter were (mostly) willing to wait for God to deliver his people. A third group, the zealots, believed God wouldn't act to deliver his people until they took the first step of raising a banner against the Romans. Galileans were uneducated, prone to favor the zealots, and profoundly unhappy with the status quo-- one need only look at the number of revolts staged by Galileans to see that this is true.

As to Nathaniel being a "true Israelite," that has nothing to do with ethnicity. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures a distinction is made between what we might call ethnic Israel, which included everyone who was part of the covenant community, and "true Israel," which was made up of those in Israel who remained faithful to God's covenants, even when the majority abandoned God.

You may be right or wrong about ethnic origins (I personally think you're over-reaching a bit), but these verses are irrelevant to the discussion, I think.

Babylon_74
07-25-2016, 10:15 PM
You have to know that drawing a direct correlation between these verses and the ethnic origins of Galileans is speculative to the extreme. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it is a novel interpretation. Nazareth was a backwater, and from a Judaean point of view, Galilee was a seething mass of sedition.

It's a hypothesis. it's supposed by to be speculative and controversial,But not to the point of extreme as you have describe it.Actually the NT is not a history book.We have to maneuver through its writer(s) agenda(s) and its varied twists and turns to decode all those nuggets of information and understand it in a new novel perspective based on latest Archaeological,Historical and human genetics discoveries .After that you have only to connect the bits and pieces between Matthew 26:69 reference and John 1:46 and 1:47 add to that the direct narrative of Paul in his letter to Galatians and so on .

It's either we accept what Galilean archaeology had yield ((.... The absence of Galilean human settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III) rules out the hypothesis of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period....)) or we believe in a mythical homogeneous ethnical continuity.

It's either we believe that the Galilee region was annexed by Aristobulus I,and there was some resistance from the Arab Ituraean tribes from the northern parts of the region. And the conquered inhabitants were forced to accept the Jewish faith and Identity or we have to believe there was no annexation and no converted Gentiles?

It's either we firmly believe in the Galilean evidence of the Northward expansion of Hasmoneans and the southward movement of the Ituraeans or we oversimplify it to minor linguistic and dialects differences.

The ِAramaic interactive relationship with Galilee overpass all those previous evidences.It had also huge economical and cultural impact on Galilean daily life.I can name-as an example- the extensive use of Tyrian shekel in Galilean trade I will quote Josephus ,Because The Tyrian coins is referred by name as a common currency in agricultural trade in Galilee:

"He then bought up all the oil, paying Tyrian coin of the value of four Athenian drachmas for four amphoras and proceeded to sell half an amphora at the same price." (War 2.21.2 592)

And I can also use an NT reference from Acts 12:20

((....they depended on the king's country for their food supply.....)) needless to say the extensive use of Phoenician semi fine ware in Galilee.

David Mc
07-25-2016, 11:12 PM
It's a hypothesis. it's supposed by to be speculative and controversial,But not to the point of extreme as you have describe it.Actually the NT is not a history book.

The New Testament is a collection of writings from a number of different genres. To say it/they are not history books is to obfuscate how history was recorded prior to the modern period. The Gospels, for example, would claim to be (and were accepted by Christians to be) true accounts of words and deeds of Christ, particularly during his ministry years. The Book of Acts would claim to be (and was accepted by Christians to be) a true account of the Church's beginnings. While debates may rage about how the Old Testament reflects archaeological records, there is little in the New Testament that raises flags archaeologically, so I'm not sure I understand your point. If your primary objection is the New Testament's portrayal of Galilean Jewry as Jewish, then you'll also have trouble with Josephus... but you've already appealed to him as an authority.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with the idea that many in the Galilee region were descended from converts. I've said as much in an earlier post. I would have a problem with an argument that Galileans as a whole were not Jewish or that they were all converts. At that point we are abandoning the only historical documents we have (apart from whatever nuggets we think might be useful to our hypotheses) and jumping into a very subjective (and usually politically-charged) sea.

Pegasusphm1
07-28-2016, 12:57 AM
I'm acquainted with some of his and Géza Vermes works and I'm also acquainted with John Dominic Crossan and E. P. Sanders works.
Actually I'm interested to know your thoughts concerning the converted Galileans hypothesis.

Three positions (a) Old Israelites, (b) Converted Iturians (c) Jewish colonialists during the Hasmonean period (Aristobulus). While the archeological findings tend to point to (c), all three have merit given the wars, economic trade routes, etc of the regional area. While populations increased during the Hasmonian, you had some peoples already there. Hasmonian period was a quasi-independence and nations borders shifted during this period.

Culturally, you could call it "Bible Belt" of Judea, given so many religious figures emerged from the area during the 2nd temple period. In addition to Jesus and his followers you had individuals like Honi ha-M'agel, and others etc. I wish they would allow more testing on ancient remains.

Pegasusphm1
07-28-2016, 01:08 AM
For those who are interested in early Christianity, particularly in the context of "Second Temple Judaism," I would recommend N. T. Wright's work, specifically his "Christian Origins and the Question of God" series. It isn't written for laymen, but anyone who is reading Sanders et al. will be comfortable enough with Wright. The only thing I would say is, start with the first book (The New Testament and the People of God). He lays down his epistemological foundations there, and You will save yourself a lot of time if you let him describe his approach before you jump in elsewhere. I, alas, began with his second volume...

For all that Eisenman provides an interesting read, he's also a bit of an eccentric.

When reading Eisenman is like reading Pravada. You can glean some interesting observations between the lines. Eccentric, yah that's a fitting description .

Thank you for your suggestion.

One work I really enjoyed on the DSS was by Michael Wise. Dead Sea Scrolls - A New Translation
https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Sea-Scrolls-New-Translation/dp/006076662X

Found his sections on calendars very useful, and with the liturgy codexs he leaves areas open and doesn't fill in his own theories with the presenting the material.
Does list other ancient texts which also share the theme of the codex before presenting for review. Bit refreshing.

Pegasusphm1
07-28-2016, 01:23 AM
You have to know that drawing a direct correlation between these verses and the ethnic origins of Galileans is speculative to the extreme. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it is a novel interpretation. Nazareth was a backwater, and from a Judaean point of view, Galilee was a seething mass of sedition. The Sadducees, and to a lesser extent (Wright would argue to a much lesser extent) the Pharisees had found a balance of sorts in the context of Roman occupation. The former saw the Pax Romana as a golden age of peace an stability. The latter were (mostly) willing to wait for God to deliver his people. A third group, the zealots, believed God wouldn't act to deliver his people until they took the first step of raising a banner against the Romans. Galileans were uneducated, prone to favor the zealots, and profoundly unhappy with the status quo-- one need only look at the number of revolts staged by Galileans to see that this is true.

As to Nathaniel being a "true Israelite," that has nothing to do with ethnicity. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures a distinction is made between what we might call ethnic Israel, which included everyone who was part of the covenant community, and "true Israel," which was made up of those in Israel who remained faithful to God's covenants, even when the majority abandoned God.

You may be right or wrong about ethnic origins (I personally think you're over-reaching a bit), but these verses are irrelevant to the discussion, I think.

Yes, what you call balance the the Essenes labeled the Pharisees "Seekers of Smooth Things".

David Mc
07-28-2016, 01:51 AM
One work I really enjoyed on the DSS was by Michael Wise. Dead Sea Scrolls - A New Translation
https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Sea-Scro.../dp/006076662X

Found his sections on calendars very useful, and with the liturgy codexs he leaves areas open and doesn't fill in his own theories with the presenting the material.
Does list other ancient texts which also share the theme of the codex before presenting for review. Bit refreshing.

Nice! I have the pleasure of knowing Doctors Peter Flint and Martin Abegg, who co-led the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute together. Marty is the person who actually reconstructed the Scrolls using the Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. Until then access to the Scrolls was and publication of data taken from the Scrolls was very tightly regulated. Now it is available to all.

Babylon_74
07-28-2016, 01:47 PM
Three positions (a) Old Israelites, (b) Converted Iturians (c) Jewish colonialists during the Hasmonean period (Aristobulus). While the archeological findings tend to point to (c),

In fact those were the only 3 demographic possibilities at that time,With slight difference about the possible ethnic identity of the converted Gentiles (Option B ) .Actually they could have been an Aramaic mixture of (Itureans and upper Galilee Phoenicians).

But the big question is about the archaeological findings during the time of Jesus the Galilean.Personally I couldn't find any strong cultural indications of Jewish colonialists influence (Option C).On the contrary I can see clearly the use of Tyrian courtyard house in Capernaum architecture.

10682

This type of Tyrian Architecture(also mentioned in Talmud) with its distinctive open courtyard spatial configuration was totally different from the typical Israelite Four room house.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_room_house

Needless to say about the use of Phoenician semi fine pottery in Galilee

10683

10684



Culturally, you could call it "Bible Belt" of Judea, given so many religious figures emerged from the area during the 2nd temple period. In addition to Jesus and his followers you had individuals like Honi ha-M'agel, and others etc. I wish they would allow more testing on ancient remains.

Indeed,I can also mention Judas the Galilean from Acts 5:37.He appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.

Testing the remains of first century Galilean cemeteries would definitely solve the mystery of Galileans true ethnic origins.

David Mc
07-29-2016, 09:18 PM
So I've been looking at the Galilean archaeological record from ca. the time of Christ... and now I really don't understand the basis of your argument. Your premise has been that archaeology tells a different story than the documents we have for (and from) the period, yes? So why is it that everywhere I look I see that the vast majority of Galilean finds show a culture that is extremely similar to that of Judea. Most of the homes are, in fact, built along the same lines as those in Judea. Domestic wear is essentially the same as that in Judea. The prevalence of mikvot, and their form, reflects the presence and form in Judea. Have I misunderstood you somehow?

Babylon_74
07-29-2016, 09:58 PM
Most of the homes are, in fact, built along the same lines as those in Judea.

I'm affraid that this is pure generalization Archaeologically speaking .Kindly can you prove that Galilean Architecture was the same as those in Judea in a documented scientific way?



Domestic wear is essentially the same as that in Judea

Can you prove that Phoenician semi fine pottery were extensively used in Judea during the same period?


The prevalence of mikvot, and their form, reflects the presence and form in Judea

were the mikvot part of the Jewish Ethnic and Architectural identity prior to Hasmonean Annexation of Galilee Archaeologically speaking?

David Mc
07-29-2016, 10:49 PM
I'm affraid that this is pure generalization Archaeologically speaking .Kindly can you prove that Galilean Architecture was the same as those in Judea in a documented scientific way?

It is “pure generalization” because it is generally true.

I’m not going to spend hours doing a copy and paste job—I’m afraid the burden of doubt rests firmly on your shoulders. All I can say is that if anyone doubts the veracity of what I’ve written, just look at the data. There’s plenty out there. For example, in Jonathan Reed’s Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence, Reed notes that, architecture aside, the religious indicators “consistently mirror those of Judea” and are “remarkably homogenous” (Reed, 49) Add to this mikvaoth, burial practices (the use of Kokhim), the absence of pork remains, and the absence of pagan cultic sites. In Sepphoris alone archaeologists discovered hundreds of stone vessel fragments and twenty mikvaot—these are all from the “earliest recoverable stratum in the domestic quarters from about 100 B.C.E to 70 C.E.” (ibid).

Archaeologically speaking, everything suggests that the Galileans were largely descended from Judean settlers who re-settled the land ca. 100 BC.




Can you prove that Phoenician semi fine pottery were extensively used in Judea during the same period?

Of course not, because you're starting from a false premise. Phoenician semi fine pottery wasn't extensively used in either Judea or Galilee. In most Galilean sites (excepting those on the coast) there is very little evidence of any imported pottery. Most pottery in Galilee looks like pottery from Judea.


were the mikvot part of the Jewish Ethnic and Architectural identity prior to Hasmonean Annexation of Galilee Archaeologically speaking?

Given that my point is that archaeology suggests that most Galileans descend from Judeans who moved north at this time, taking their material culture with them, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Babylon_74
07-30-2016, 12:42 AM
It is “pure generalization” because it is generally true.

I’m not going to spend hours doing a copy and paste job—I’m afraid the burden of doubt rests firmly on your shoulders.

?????


Add to this mikvaoth, burial practices (the use of Kokhim)

Obviously you're acquainted with Aramaic Rock-cut tombs archaeologically speaking.


Of course not, because you're starting from a false premise. Phoenician semi fine pottery wasn't extensively used in either Judea or Galilee. In most Galilean sites (excepting those on the coast)

10699 10700



Given that my point is that archaeology suggests that most Galileans descend from Judeans who moved north at this time, taking their material culture with them

I'm afraid again that you're not getting the idea that (Mikveh) is not part of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period.It was part of the Annexation cultural updating process.

David Mc
07-30-2016, 04:45 AM
?????

Obviously you're acquainted with Aramaic Rock-cut tombs archaeologically speaking.

I'm afraid again that you're not getting the idea that (Mikveh) is not part of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period.It was part of the Annexation cultural updating process.

I wrote: "Given that my point is that archaeology suggests that most Galileans descend from Judeans who moved north at this time, taking their material culture with them, I'm not sure what you're getting at."

Could you please respond to that, because I actually don't know what you're arguing anymore. My premise is that most Galileans were descended from Judean settlers who moved north about a century before Christ. Sometimes it looks like you're agreeing with me, but then you make points that don't seem to bear any relevance to that argument.


Obviously you're acquainted with Aramaic Rock-cut tombs archaeologically speaking.

Many cultures had rock-cut tombs. The ones I'm interested in are the ones that are most alike. The Galilean and Judean burial traditions belong to the same tradition which includes the placing of ossuaries within said tomb. This wasn't a broadly Aramaic practice; it was distinctly Jewish.


I'm afraid again that you're not getting the idea that (Mikveh) is not part of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period.It was part of the Annexation cultural updating process.

How am I not getting that, and how is that significant? Mikvot our not found anywhere in the archaeological record prior to the 1st century BC. When they appear, they appear in both Judea and the Galilee.

David Mc
07-30-2016, 04:53 AM
Oh, and with regard to the pottery, I'm still not getting your point. Given that most of the images you're posting predate the annexation period, what are they supposed to signify.

The last one you attached is from the early Bronze Age, for goodness sake! When I see things like that I wonder if I am actually being trolled.

Agamemnon
07-31-2016, 03:56 PM
MOD: This debate is devolving into a sterile and counterintuitive discussion, not only are the sources cited here being used to advocate views contrary to those of the authors, this isn't even the appropriate place to discuss whether the Galileans were a separate ethnic group (which they weren't but that's above the point). I'm going to apply a no-nonsense policy from now on, either the OT stuff stops or I'll close this thread and split the OT discussion into a separate thread which will also be closed. Your call.

wmehar
03-10-2017, 02:47 PM
So, gravitating back towards the topic -- Anecdotally, Iran/Shia populations are reputed to be nearly all Sayyids/direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad's family.

Is there a strong Persian/Iranian or even Iraqi database of Y-DNA, open to the public?

jesus
03-10-2017, 03:47 PM
So, gravitating back towards the topic -- Anecdotally, Iran/Shia populations are reputed to be nearly all Sayyids/direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad's family.


That's not true at all(for Shias and Iranians).

wmehar
03-15-2017, 05:18 PM
That's not true at all(for Shias and Iranians).

Now I do agree with you, which is why I say "anecdotally", as I've been told by Shias and certain Iranians this tidbit of information.

Maybe I'll limit my usage of the word "Iranian" and just say Shia populations. I think it'd be very interesting to know if there is a statistical difference between one Sect's capacity of being directly descended from the Prophet's family, over the other.

Which is what the sect uses as a crutch to say "We are the key holders of the TRUE knowledge of Islam" blah blah blah, because they seem to be under the impression that their perspective/narratives and information supersedes mainstream Sunni narratives based on leading scholars/Shia personalities purported familial relation to the Prophet's family.

I think it'd be an experiment worth investigating, and gauging reactions.

Consider the results if both populations possess the same proportion of individuals claiming lineage, or if one was higher than the other. I think one can derive meaningful insights from this, even with regard to population migrations and historic events.

Piquerobi
03-17-2017, 07:05 PM
Any updates?

murtazasayeed
11-08-2017, 02:10 PM
I'm allegedly a sayyid (I truly don't care) with a shajarah over 1,000 years old. I was always curious if its true, if the deer skin scroll it's written on is accurate. I did ancestry but it does not show my paternal y haplogroup. I used an outdated and questionably accurate tool that is supposed to extract this info from ancestry autosymal and it shows me as E1B as most likely. I mean out of all those names on my family tree, not one guy was sterile or unable to have kids? Adopted secret child or something? hahaa. And we will never know the prophets haplogroup no matter what the Jordanian royal family claims. None of this matters I know, bnut do you guys have any suggestion as to what other tool may be available to find my paternal y haplogroup?

P.S. I just sent out my 23andme sample but don't wanna wait 8 weeks to find out.

murtazasayeed
11-24-2017, 04:44 PM
I just got my y haplo, not J at all. I’m either ancient isrealite or Bosnian branch lol.

drobbah
11-24-2017, 06:17 PM
I just got my y haplo, not J at all. I’m either ancient isrealite or Bosnian branch lol.
Isn't E1b1b1a1b V13? You have a better chance of being a descendant of Alexander's army than being from the Prophet or an ancient Israelite.Since V13 is practically non-existent in Afro-Asiatic speaking areas let alone the Arabian Peninsula

Piquerobi
06-05-2018, 04:06 PM
The Hashemites:


The Hashemites claim to trace their ancestry from Hashim ibn 'Abd Manaf (died c. 497 AD), the great-grandfather of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, although the definition today mainly refers to the descendants of Muhammad's daughter Fatimah. The early history of the Hashemites saw them in a continuous struggle against the Umayyads for control over who would be the caliph or successor to Muhammad. The Umayyads were of the same tribe as the Hashemites, but a different clan. After the overthrow of the Umayyads, the Abbasids would present themselves as representatives of the Hashemites, as they claimed descent from Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, an uncle of Muhammad. Muhammad's father had died before he was born, and his mother died while he was a child, so Muhammad was raised by his uncle Abu Talib ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, chief of the Hashemites.

From the 10th century onwards, the sharif (religious leader) of Mecca and its Emir was, by traditional agreement, a Hashemite. Before World War I, Hussein bin Ali of the Hashemite Dhawu-'Awn clan ruled the Hejaz on behalf of the Ottoman sultan. For some time it had been the practice of the Sublime Porte to appoint the Emir of Mecca from among a select group of candidates. In 1908, Hussein bin Ali was appointed to the Emirate of Mecca. He found himself increasingly at odds with the Young Turks in control at Istanbul, while he strove to secure his family's position as hereditary Emirs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites

Lupriac
08-18-2018, 02:43 PM
What is the explanation of a notable minority of J2 found among some Hashemites (Alids mostly)?

Achmadzaky
04-29-2020, 09:54 PM
What is the explanation of a notable minority of J2 found among some Hashemites (Alids mostly)?

and don't forget

most of baalawy saada (descendant of sayyidina husain) belongs to haplogroup G-M406 branch

Lupriac
05-13-2020, 05:30 PM
and don't forget

most of baalawy saada (descendant of sayyidina husain) belongs to haplogroup G-M406 branch

The descendants of al-Husayn, on whom be peace, are mostly under L859. Which is the most likely lineage.

Achmadzaky
06-03-2020, 04:06 PM
The descendants of al-Husayn, on whom be peace, are mostly under L859. Which is the most likely lineage.

most of them are in G-Y32612, here is sample from yfull (https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-Y32612/)

and also on ftdna project called baalawy dna project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/baalawi?)

I don't want to offensive but baalawy saadah have family pedigree and have an institution to verified a family pedigree

indorabian
06-26-2020, 11:18 PM
most of them are in G-Y32612, here is sample from yfull (https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-Y32612/)

and also on ftdna project called baalawy dna project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/baalawi?)

I don't want to offensive but baalawy saadah have family pedigree and have an institution to verified a family pedigree

are you baalwi? I see you are an Indonesian-Yemeni (jamaah) too.

subzero85
10-20-2020, 01:01 PM
The general consensus in the genetic genealogy community is that this is the Hashemite Y-DNA: https://yfull.com/tree/J-Y12361/

I'm willing to go with the consensus. I think people with credible claims but not matching this clade likely have it passed through a maternal line at some point.