Posted on 06/10/2010 12:23:14 PM PDT by GOPGuide
The study also demonstrated that the history of Jewish people could be found in their genomes. The two major groups, Middle Eastern Jews and European Jews, were timed to have diverged from each other approximately 2500 years ago. Southern European populations show the greatest proximity to Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Italian Jews, reflecting the large-scale southern European conversion and admixture known to have occurred over 2,000 years ago during the formation of the European Jewry. An apparent North African ancestry component was also observed as was present in the Sephardic groups potentially reflecting gene flow from Moorish to Jewish populations in Spain from 711 to 1492. The structure of the genomes of Ashkenazi Jewish populations indicates a severe bottleneck followed by expansion during the 19th century when the Jewish population in western and eastern Europe increased about twice as fast as the non-Jewish population. This has been referred to as "the demographic miracle." Within every Jewish group, there was a high degree of relatedness between any two of its members. For Ashkenazi Jews, the relatedness was similar to what one might observe for fifth cousins.
Dr. Ostrer noted, "The study supports the idea of a Jewish people linked by a shared genetic history. Yet the admixture with European people explains why so many European and Syrian Jews have blue eyes and blonde hair."
(Excerpt) Read more at newswise.com ...
I can’t follow the article.
Either it is horribly written, or I’m having an off day.
What's Helen Thomas going to say? Seems like they're not Poles or Germans after all.
“Jewish groups were more related to each other than to the non-Jewish groups in the study”
Talk about burying the lede.
You don’t think about it but many Jews were Citizens of Rome and must have come into Europe with the Romans.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks GOPGuide. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
The New Testament implies many Gentiles were being drawn into Judaism in the first century. The "god-fearers" frequently referred to were Gentiles who knew the Jews were on to something and were strongly attracted to their understanding. Many of the early Christians came from this group, and in many cities, this group outnumbered those who were physical descendants of the Jews.
Also, the Council of Jerusalem (the first church council, where Peter and Paul had it out) was called to settle the question of whether only Gentiles who had previously converted to Judaism could become Christians. In the end, it was decided that Gentiles did not have to become Jews first in order to become Christians.
Paul's attitude toward Timothy's conversion to Judaism (encouraged by Paul) demonstrated that attitudes toward conversion were quite different than today.
Jews in the first century were a theologically diverse group, and included the temple sacrifice-oriented Sadduccees, the ascetic Essenes, the nascent Christians and the "Pharisees", who were the antecedents of what is today considered "Judaism". The separation between the Christians (who at the beginning were almost all Jewish) and the rest of the Jews did not occur all at once,but rather over a period of time, until, in the early 300's, the "Jewish Christians" were ordered to stop celebrating Passover and to abandon the Jewish calendar.
I have read estimates that about 10% of the population of the Empire at the time of Christ was Jewish. This was in part owning to conversion and part to high reproduction. Paul Johnson, I think, has also said that many Jews were Christians, and many gentiles attracted to Judaism but hesitant to endure circumcision became Christians instead.
Thanks everyone for the information!
Chritianity is a sort of a divergent Jewish Sect.
Modern Judaism and Christianity have the same root source in the religious and cultural millieu of first Century B.C.E. and C.E. Palestine.
I think we are on the same page.
Christianity began as a Jewish sect, somewhat like the Essenes , who also rejected the temple authority. and disagree with the “Pharisees,” who were
other antagonists of the Temple authorities,and who gave rise to what eventually became the Talmudic tradition. This is how I would say it. Modern Judaism, as I see it, rejects both Christianity and the Judaism of the time. Like liberal Christianity. it takes more than the Enlightenment” than from the Bible.
I do have a question: Can you recommend a history of Judaism that talks about the relationship between the Jews of Iraq and Palestine, and between both and the Jews of the Roman Empire.
I was reading a snatch of history talking about the Jewish Rebellion under Trajan. It was, so I read, a really big deal and that the Romans put it down only with difficulty. Speculation: If the Jews of the Diaspora had supported the Rebellion of the 60s, the Zealots might have got the kingdom they wanted and it would have become a formidable power in the region.
“I do have a question: Can you recommend a history of Judaism that talks about the relationship between the Jews of Iraq and Palestine, and between both and the Jews of the Roman Empire.”
Sorry. I don’t know. Maybe someone else on this forum does.
“I was reading a snatch of history talking about the Jewish Rebellion under Trajan. It was, so I read, a really big deal and that the Romans put it down only with difficulty. Speculation: If the Jews of the Diaspora had supported the Rebellion of the 60s, the Zealots might have got the kingdom they wanted and it would have become a formidable power in the region.”
My personal opinion is that any efforts at rebellion against the Romans was doomed to failure. Their military machine back then was simply too effective and outclassed anything opposing them at the time.
The Jewish Revolt gave them a lot of trouble, but i nthe long run, it didn’t accomplish much for the Jewish People. Accomodation would have been much better as actually the Jews receveid pretty generous trteatment from the Romans.
Read Josephus “The Jewish War”.
The Revolt in the ‘ 60s did not extend beyond Syria. If the Jews in Egypt and in Asia had joined in, the Romans would have been under the gun. The Jews might have made common cause with the Persians. It has been estimated that a tenth of the people of the Empire were Jews, the bulk of them in the East. Roman power, btw, was based on the Greeks. One criticism of Mel Gibson’s
Passion” was that he had Pilate speaking Latin/Aramaic to Christ when Greek would probably have been their common language. Relatively few of the Roman troops were in the area Latins or Italians of any sort.
“One criticism of Mel Gibson’s Passion” was that he had Pilate speaking Latin/Aramaic to Christ when Greek would probably have been their common language.”
Well, at the time and place of of Christ’s Trial, that was true.
But the revolt came later. Initial efforts to crush it failed and legions were brought in from other areas. I do not believe the legionnaires were ethnic Greeks. Some of them like the Tenth Legion, were from Spain, others recruited from the Balkans. And trying to determine who were ethnic Celts, Macedonians, Thracians, Iberians,etc. or ethnic Latins is difficult as when Rome conquered terriroty in the West, they had a practise of establishing Coloniae or colonies of discharged veterans to serve as a Romanizing influence. These people frequently married local women, had mixed chidlren by them who then went on to serve in the legions and be discharged later in other parts of the Empire.
The troops who were actually there in Jerusalem at the time of Christ’s trial were probably auxiliaries who may have been Greek speaking Syrians. Most of the people in the Middle East were Hellenized and spoke Greek, but that no more made them ethnic Greeks than the Ptolemys were ethnic Egyptians.
The Legions were stationed at the border because of the Parthian menace.
“Relatively few of the Roman troops were in the area Latins or Italians of any sort.”
Even at the time of Christ and probably during the Jewish Revolt, most of the Officer Class were still drawn from Italy - although that gradually changed as time progressed.
I know that there were large numbers of Jews spread throughout the Empire.
You have to remember that, at that time, the kind of specialized weaponry used by the average legionnary required a LOT of practice to use effectively and required officers who were most epxerienced, the senior centurions, who had the necessary skill to direct them.
A group of people unfamiliar with the use of those hand weapons and lacking the advantages of communication and central command and supply structure would have been fighting at a distinct disadvantage with dealing with the Romans.
Ancient warfare was not as surgical and detached as warfare today frequently is. It was brutal, bloody, tiresome, wearying, and in-your-face. It wasn’t as simple as shooting firearms.
Unless you were very well trained in the use of the arms of the time and disciplined, as the Jews were not, the chances of prevailing against the Roman military were remote.
At least that is my take on it.
Check out some of the books on the Roman Legions by Adrian Goldsworthy. He is a recent British historical scholar with special interest in the Roman Army and its command structure, tactics, etc.
Even in the case of the Battle of the Teutoberger Wald, the Romans were facing an enemy who was:
a) Skilled in the use of arms from youth
b) Familiar with the terrain
c) Led by an officer with experience in Roman Tactics
(Arminius servedi the Roman military establishment)
and the Romans were commanded by a fool - Qunctilius Varus.
From my limited information, I gather you are mostly correct. Stiull, I do know that because of the (second) Jewish uprising, Trajan had to abandon his conquest of Iraq. The Romans never had much success in that area, as you know, it remained a frontier province. Finally, in the 7th Century, after the Romans and the Persians had beat each other to a pulp, the Arabs rode into to take the whole shebang.
“From my limited information, I gather you are mostly correct.”
Some of that is personal opinion.
“The Romans never had much success in that area, as you know, it remained a frontier province.”
I guess so. The Romans were mainly an infantry force although they did use auxiliary cavalry effectively at times.
“Finally, in the 7th Century, after the Romans and the Persians had beat each other to a pulp, the Arabs rode into to take the whole shebang.”
Some things never change. The Muzzies are always there to exploit other people’s problems for their own advantage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.