3 ms·
Not really. The story of Abraham begins in “Ur of the Chaldees.” The modern consensus is that it should be in southern Iran, but historical sources had it in no
by Digory 3y ago
Not really. The story of Abraham begins in “Ur of the Chaldees.” The modern consensus is that it should be in southern Iran, but historical sources had it in northern Iran or closer to Turkey. Which is also the source of the Phoenicians / Canaanites.
Between that, the sojourn to Egypt, and the constant complaints about intermarriage in the OT, you’d already expect these to be roughly the same gene pool.
More interesting may be the connection (or lack thereof) between OT-era Jews to modern Jews, which plays into political and racial arguments.
- mythrwy 3y agoI think you mean maybe Iraq (Mesopotamia) not Iran?
- Digory 3y agoCorrect.
- empath-nirvana 3y ago> The story of Abraham begins in “Ur of the Chaldees.” You're presuming some historicity there that I don't think is warranted. A lot of the stories in Genesis had their origin in stories from Mesopotamia, and I wouldn't read much more into that than you'd read into the Aenead claiming that the Romans originated in Troy. They're just borrowing legitimacy from an older historical tradition.
- shusaku 3y agoYou’ve missed his point. He’s just saying that if archeological evidence suggests that Iron Age Israelites are genetically just caaninites, there is no inconsistency with the legend. A shocking number of people in this thread seem to think the exodus narrative would imply the Israelites were Egyptians.