The Origin of Ashkenazic Jews


I question this investigations competence.
Jews are Judeans from israel and other places they moved to but only married each other.
I don’t trust dna claims. Yes they would intermarry with many peoples they lived amongst but still always remain a segregated people group.
If the more eastern ones intermarried with all those folks that also must not hide the fact of remaining a Hebrew people. they look like middle eastern peoples, most, and nmot all the very different types they moved amongst.
They hardly look like Asian tribes. They look like arabs especially the Askenazi ones.
There was no jewish emire but probably a influential elite. thats a old discredited story
by the way Ashkenazie comes from genesis. Gomer was son of japhet, son of noah. he had three sons.
Gomer is seen as the first german. So the old jews used one of the sons names.
by the by. togarmah was another son. most likely this real man was the origin of the name THOR. They turned him into a God when he died. Thats the eastern Germans. In prophecy THE WHOLE HOUSE OF TOGARMAH will be involved in last events. That means the english speaking nations

That means you have no reason to think the DNA would be pure, so why wouldn’t you trust the DNA results? Both can be true. That they intermarried and remained a segregated people group at the same time.

As a yEC I have great misgivings about DNA concepts. They see it as fixed and then extrapolate backwards from it in biology studies. For example i see marsupials as just placentals with a post flood adaptation upon migration to certain areas. So the bodychange to “marsupialism” would include a DNA change. This dna change would be general amongst unrelated creatures.
So DNA is not fixed to me.
In human populations I see it as very flexible or adaptive.
So in this case I see a population just in a minor way gaining new people/dna but still in the majority being a middle east people.
I know I can’t expect people to accept a dismissal of DNA studies like this.
However the common sense, and awareness of history, would say these Jews do not come from tiny populatins that then intermarry to make the original HEBREW blood a tiny minority.
i’m saying common sense, history, stands against dna studies AND THEN i have my problems with dna.
I think looking at people features is a better guide.
They look darker, very Arab like, etc etc unlike others who look like white europeans.
Also its history that they didn’t intermarry much. Very exclkusive even to the point of inventing a language out of bits of others. Very rare for that to happen.
Lastly, not sure how long, but they made the female side the part that made one Jewish. This likely needed because the men slept around more and had more kids.Thus making the “race” not pure.
Anyways its a interesting subject for many reasons.

Here is the original paper. Please read it before making baseless claims about scientists competence. Ancient DNA is a new science and new technology. It is hard work. The results do not have to confirm with your beliefs, biases and what you imagine what they are suppose to be. Comment on the science, otherwise you are adding nothing to the discussion.


You have no vote. This is science. The results are the results whether you like them or not. The hundred of scientists who work in the ancient DNA field as at the forefront of science and technology. Read David Reich’s new book to be able to discuss clearly what you think. Note that new results will be coming in faster and faster as more and more ancient DNA is sequenced. Along with new surprises.

Not true. It is whole genome sequencing from ancient bones - thousands of them in thousands of location around the world and time periods from the present to as far back as 440,000 years ago. Have you had YOUR genome sequenced? It is inexpensive and very informative. You may be a percentage of Ashkenazic Jew and certainly a percentage of Neanderthal.

I’m not qualified to comment about how accurate the article is about genetics, however the article has a glaring mistake where it describes the Yiddish language. The article says that Yiddish has Slavic grammar. Yiddish grammar is Germanic. Most Yiddish words are of German origin and it has some words of Slavic and of course Hebrew origin. But Yiddish grammar is Germanic and not like any Slavic language I have seen. I have seen Yiddish transliterated and I was able to understand the gist of it by reading it like it was a dialect of German.

From article:

By the tenth century, the Jews on the Black Sea migrated to Ukraine and Italy. Yiddish became the lingua franca of these Ashkenazic Jews and absorbed German words while maintaining the Slavic grammar. And as global trade moved to the hands of the Italians, Dutch and English, the Jews were pushed aside.

@Alice_Linsley are you able to comment on this? Thanks

1 Like

I found this interesting article: