European Jewish Hypothesis
#1
http://m.phys.org/news/2013-01-european-...ation.html

Has anyone ever heard of this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#2
I supose it's interesting: I had heard the "Khazar hypothesis" was debunked. It seems likely to me that the Khazars, being a large population of religious Jews, would have intermarried with Semitic Jews and contributed something to Jewish bloodlines.  Personally I suspect that It was a remnant of the Khazars that intermarried with other Jewish groups. The rest probably assimilated with local Christian or (especially) Muslim Turkish populations.

I have also heard the Khazar hypothesis linked to anti-Semitism. I don't really see why: whether someone has Semitic or Turkic blood (or a mix of the two) it wouldn't really justify any kind of hatred of that person.
Reply
#3
Paul Wexler, an American-born Israeli linguist and a specialist in Slavic languages and Yiddish, is a leading proponent of the idea that Ashkenazic Jewish communities originate partially from communities of Christian and pagan Slavs, influenced in part by Judaized Khazars. His work is controversial, and he suggests that what we know as Jewry today is drawn from an assortment of ancient and medieval peoples who came to affiliate with the Jewish religion through extensive contact and proselytism.

He basically considers Ashkenazic Jews to be a sort of Slavic ethnos, although he argues their original Slavic language became Germanized into Yiddish, while keeping some Slavic structure and core vocabulary (like kinship terminology).
Reply
#4

(12-30-2015, 05:12 AM)Optatus Cleary Wrote: I supose it's interesting: I had heard the "Khazar hypothesis" was debunked. It seems likely to me that the Khazars, being a large population of religious Jews, would have intermarried with Semitic Jews and contributed something to Jewish bloodlines.  Personally I suspect that It was a remnant of the Khazars that intermarried with other Jewish groups. The rest probably assimilated with local Christian or (especially) Muslim Turkish populations.

I have also heard the Khazar hypothesis linked to anti-Semitism. I don't really see why: whether someone has Semitic or Turkic blood (or a mix of the two) it wouldn't really justify any kind of hatred of that person.

It's linked to anti-semitism because it weakens the European Jews claim on modern day Israel as "theirs" so naturally they get defensive 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#5
(12-30-2015, 11:10 AM)DeoDuce Wrote:
(12-30-2015, 05:12 AM)Optatus Cleary Wrote: I supose it's interesting: I had heard the "Khazar hypothesis" was debunked. It seems likely to me that the Khazars, being a large population of religious Jews, would have intermarried with Semitic Jews and contributed something to Jewish bloodlines.  Personally I suspect that It was a remnant of the Khazars that intermarried with other Jewish groups. The rest probably assimilated with local Christian or (especially) Muslim Turkish populations.

I have also heard the Khazar hypothesis linked to anti-Semitism. I don't really see why: whether someone has Semitic or Turkic blood (or a mix of the two) it wouldn't really justify any kind of hatred of that person.

It's linked to anti-semitism because it weakens the European Jews claim on modern day Israel as "theirs" so naturally they get defensive 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why does it weaken the claim? I always assumed that the claim was based on religion, not genetic origin.
Reply
#6

(01-02-2016, 10:43 AM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(12-30-2015, 11:10 AM)DeoDuce Wrote:
(12-30-2015, 05:12 AM)Optatus Cleary Wrote: I supose it's interesting: I had heard the "Khazar hypothesis" was debunked. It seems likely to me that the Khazars, being a large population of religious Jews, would have intermarried with Semitic Jews and contributed something to Jewish bloodlines.  Personally I suspect that It was a remnant of the Khazars that intermarried with other Jewish groups. The rest probably assimilated with local Christian or (especially) Muslim Turkish populations.

I have also heard the Khazar hypothesis linked to anti-Semitism. I don't really see why: whether someone has Semitic or Turkic blood (or a mix of the two) it wouldn't really justify any kind of hatred of that person.

It's linked to anti-semitism because it weakens the European Jews claim on modern day Israel as "theirs" so naturally they get defensive 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why does it weaken the claim? I always assumed that the claim was based on religion, not genetic origin.

It weakens the claim in the eyes of Gentiles. I think it's bullshit that European Jews get to just displace Arab Christians. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#7
(01-02-2016, 01:06 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: It weakens the claim in the eyes of Gentiles. I think it's bullsh** that European Jews get to just displace Arab Christians. 

But's it's ok, or less unjust, if they displace non-Christian Arabs?


On the DNA part, I think the Khazar hypothesis has its merits, even if it's not entirely accurate.  I did one of those ancestry DNA tests last year.  I have Central European Jewish heritage, and sure enough, it showed me as about 6% European Jewish, which they differentiate from Eastern European.  It also showed about the same percentage as being of Caucasian/Central Asian ancestry.  I have no other explanation for where that would have come from.  Everything else is Western European.
Reply
#8

(01-03-2016, 01:16 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-02-2016, 01:06 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: It weakens the claim in the eyes of Gentiles. I think it's bullsh** that European Jews get to just displace Arab Christians. 

But's it's ok, or less unjust, if they displace non-Christian Arabs?

Did I say that? No I didn't so don't put words in my mouth. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#9
(01-03-2016, 02:57 PM)DeoDuce Wrote:
(01-03-2016, 01:16 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-02-2016, 01:06 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: It weakens the claim in the eyes of Gentiles. I think it's bullsh** that European Jews get to just displace Arab Christians. 

But's it's ok, or less unjust, if they displace non-Christian Arabs?

Did I say that? No I didn't so don't put words in my mouth. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think to a Christian audience emphasizing Christians makes sense. It is common for some Westerners, including some Catholics, to assume all Arabs are Muslims.  Mentioning that some Arabs are Christians, I think, tends to mitigate prejudice that some American and European Catholics have against Arabs.
Reply
#10
(01-03-2016, 02:57 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: Did I say that? No I didn't so don't put words in my mouth. 

Not verbatim, but it's not an unreasonable assumption to make.  Most of the Arabs displaced by the Israelis are Muslim.  You specified Arab Christians.  Even though it's not how you meant it, it's not unreasonable to have read that as excusing the displacement of Muslim Arabs as either less wrong than that of Christian Arabs, or altogether acceptable.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)