The Evidence against the 'Israelites-from-Indus' thesis

[Tim]

@OneGod

True. Levantine genes are expected if the Jews migrated from Indus and intermarried in the Levantine area

False. You would not expect “50% or more” of Levantine genes if it were merely due from “intermarriage”.

@OneGod

That does not explain where from the R-M124 gene has entered this gene pool.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, R-M124 entered some Jewish populations AFTER the Diaspora through intermarriage with populations in southwest Asia, many of which have comparatively high levels of the gene. I would note that, even among non-Ashkenazi, R-M124 is at levels far below the 50% reported for Levantine genes.

@OneGod

Especially the Askenazi who, I believe, are the most ancient priestly tradition.

As I have already demonstrated, Ashkenazi have little or no R-M124!

R-M124 is therefore irrelevant. Have a Red Herring:

@OneGod

Unfortunately the Indus script has not been deciphered hence it is not possible to determine whether the parallel between Old Hebrew and Indus is more or less than the parallel between Old Hebrew and Canaanite.

Then you have no evidence that “Old Hebrew and Indus” are even remotely related. But we do have evidence that Old Hebrew and Canaanite are related.

Further, Afroasiatic languages exist nowhere on the Indian subcontinent (or anywhere near it), and there is no evidence that it ever existed there. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the ancient Indus language was Afroasiatic.

@OneGod

sahoo table 3 r-m124.pdf

@OneGod

sahoo.pdf

Please STOP posting web-links as (often garbled) pdf files!

Just post the link – like this:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0507714103

… or this …

https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.0507714103/suppl_file/07714table_3.pdf

@OneGod

I am attaching paper by archaeologist S R Rao to show the parallels between Indus and Phoenician.

False. This is not a “paper by archaeologist S R Rao”, it is a chapter from a book by Rama Sarker. Further, the type-setting of this chapter is not of a professional quality – in fact it looks like it was typeset on an old dot-matrix printer. This, along with the fact that I can find no citations of this book on Google Scholar make me unwilling to accept this as a credible source.

I am certainly unwilling to trawl through 46 pages of poorly-typeset print to try to ascertain exactly what your rather vaguely-expressed point is.

In particular, it is completely unclear exactly who you are claiming has a script in common with the Harappan – just the ancient Israelities? The Phoencian too? All the Northern Semitic language group? Are you claiming that all these groups came from the Indus Valley?

Until you can find a more credible source, and articulate a more precise claim, none of this is even remotely compelling.

@OneGod

Also a pic of the parallels between the signs of Old Hebrew and Indus c. 1500 BCE.

Source?

@OneGod

Thus, I am challenging the assumption that Old Hebrew is a Cananite language.

No you are not – because a script isn’t the language. Many languages have been written in multiple scripts, and many scripts have been used to write multiple languages.

This is therefore irrelevant – have another red herring:

@OneGod

But if one looks at the huge literature looking for evidence of the Hebrews in Egypt, there is regular reference to legends like Sinhue and others.

The scholarly consensus is that the Story of Sinuhe is a work of fiction – therefore it is not evidence.

It is also unclear what relevance, if any, this has to the ‘Israelites-from-Indus’ thesis – so have another red herring:

@OneGod

The Bible too can be called a legend depending upon one’s theological disposition.

Yes, and the scholarly consensus is that the Exodus narrative is legend.

@OneGod

Yet the legends are VERY important to see if the people in the respective area tell of some association with the Biblical characters.

This is mere unsubstantiated assertion.

@OneGod

Here I assert that the legends of Krishna are FAR MORE parallel to the legends of Biblical Moses than any character in Egypt or Levant.

Legendary parallels are pervasive and thus likely spurious – so your assertion is irrelevant – have another red herring:

@OneGod

@Tim

Indian genetic studies that do not include the Indus Valley.

Not quite. Historians have established that the people of the Indus Valley migrated to the Ganga plains c. 1500 BCE as the Hakra river dried up.

As would a number of migrations before and since then. It is unclear (i) whether the Indus migrants left any descendants after all these millennia and (ii) if they did, which genes are due to them, and which are due to other migrations and/or endemic inhabitants.

@OneGod

The genes of the Indian people (except, maybe, the Dravidians–a view not yet established) would be same as those of the people of the Indus Valley.

This claim therefore does not follow from your previous claim. I would also note that we have no evidence that the “Indian people” are sufficiently homogeneous that we can consider them “the same” as anything.

@OneGod

The paper by Sahoo establishes the link of R-M124 with Indus.

Where in that paper? The provinces listed do not include Sindh, which would likely be the densest populated area in the Indus Valley.

@OneGod

It does not work to say that the sample of 8 among Yadavas is weak.

There is no “sample” of “Yadavas”!

The sample is of Yadavs – a group label that only goes back to the 19th century, and for which there is no evidence of any genetic connection to the legendary ancient Yadavas.

Yadavs are irrelevant – have a great big red herring:

@OneGod

If you see the table in its entirely you will see much larger samples of other communities.

“Larger” but still quite small – less than one thousand in total. For such a heterogeneous population that sample size is far too small.

Also, if you are not making inferences from the whole sample (and you have made none as yet), the “much larger samples of other communities” are irrelevant – have another red herring:

@OneGod

There is ZERO parallel of “Mitsrayim” with Egypt before 1300 BCE.

This is hardly surprising.

1. Mizraim is a Hebrew word.

2. There is little or no Hebrew written records from before this time.

Therefore the lack of “parallel” is irrelevant – have another red herring:

@OneGod

The Indian city of “Mathura” has the same consonants M-T-R.

1. That relies on translating the Hebrew letter Tsade as “T” rather than “TS” (as in your own Roman-script spelling of “Mitsrayim”), or “S” (as in the more common Roman-script spelling of “Mizraim”). As the Wikipedia article says, “Its oldest phonetic value is debated, although there is a variety of pronunciations in different modern Semitic languages and their dialects.”

2. There are probably dozens of localities with the consonants “M-T-R” – more if we include “M-TS-R” and “M-S-R”.

3. “The Indian city of ‘Mathura’” is outside the Indus Valley, and has been at its current location for thousands of years.

Therefore Mathura is irrelevant – have another red herring:

@OneGod

On comparative basis Indus stands tall.

Indus, as I have demonstrated, is utterly worthless as a hypothesised origin of the Israelites.

By my count that is eight red herrings (including a great big one) – I will therefore suggest renaming yourself ‘OneIrrelevanceAfterAnother’.