11 ms·
> “The DNA indicates that Christopher Columbus’s origin lay in the western Mediterranean,” said the researcher. “If there weren’t Jews in Genoa in the 15th cent
by profsummergig 2y ago
> “The DNA indicates that Christopher Columbus’s origin lay in the western Mediterranean,” said the researcher. “If there weren’t Jews in Genoa in the 15th century, the likelihood that he was from there is minimal. Neither was there a big Jewish presence in the rest of the Italian peninsula, which makes things very tenuous.”
Does anyone else think that this is a poorly argued piece?
Being Jewish, and having some Jewish DNA: are they the same thing? Is it not possible that many many people in Genoa could have had Jewish ancestors? After all, most of Jesus's disciples were Jewish (please correct me if I'm wrong).
- dumbo-octopus 2y agoAll of Jesus’s original disciples were Jewish. And you can be certainly be Jewish without having Jewish DNA, but there’s some controversy as to whether the reverse is true.
- MathMonkeyMan 2y agoDavid Cross has a funny [bit][1] about whether the reverse is true. [1]: https://youtu.be/z09So1j4kpk?t=378 https://youtu.be/z09So1j4kpk?t=378
- Bulb7187 2y agoIs he not aware of the concept of ethnicity? Native Americans, Romani, Assyrians, Armenians, Kurds, and Sikhs tie religion and ethnicity.
- MathMonkeyMan 2y agoHis is a very American perspective. Also, a comedian spinning his experience into material.
- rafram 2y agoI like his work, but his bits on religion and Jewish identity in particular really miss the mark. He comes off as quite ignorant.
- coolcoder613 2y agoAccording to Jewish law, it is, in the case of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, the child is not a Jew.
- wslh 2y agoAccording to Jewish law, almost anyone can convert to Judaism.
- lazide 2y agoIt is really not an easy or straightforward process. Of the major world religions, it’s probably the hardest to convert into. Being born into it is the most common and ‘supported’ way.
- wslh 2y agoConverting to Judaism can be easier than many people assume, sometimes even simpler than earning a high school degree. It's important to note that Judaism is not a proselytizing religion, meaning it doesn't actively seek to convert others. Instead, conversion is a deeply personal choice, and those who pursue it are welcomed after a meaningful process. Judaism is actually one of the major world religions, though it's much smaller in terms of population compared to Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism [1]. Despite its smaller numbers, it has had a significant influence on Western culture, ethics, and religious thought, particularly as the foundation for both Christianity and Islam. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
- lazide 2y agoIslam requires reciting a short sentence with conviction.[https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~msa/tour/ch3-6.htm https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~msa/tour/ch3-6.htm]. Christianity requires (depending on who you ask/sect) - believing in Christ as your savior, or baptism, or being confirmed. Generally not an arduous process. Hinduism, you believe in the Dharma, and as long as you aren’t angering people enough they kick you out, you are Hindu. Some would argue, as long as you don’t believe you are something else, you are Hindu. Notably, caste can be tricky. There might also be a form you should fill out.[https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/407/is-it-true-that-one-can-not-convert-to-hinduism-from-any-other-religion-or-vice/441#441 https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/407/is-it-true-...] Buddhism, you join the Sangha (show up), or follow teachings. There is no test or anything. Many Buddhists don’t directly do those things, and I’ve never heard anything say they ‘weren’t Buddhist’. Maybe a terrible Buddhist, but what else is new? By those standards, is not Judaism the toughest and most difficult? Personally, I’d take it as a point of pride.
- danans 2y ago> And you can be certainly be Jewish without having Jewish DNA, but there’s some controversy as to whether the reverse is true. What's the controversy? Biologically there's no such thing as "Jewish DNA". It's just a shorthand for "Human DNA haplotypes (AKA markers) that occur at significant frequencies among populations that identify today as Jewish". For example, the YDNA haplotype J1, while it occurs at high frequency among Jewish populations, occurs at even higher frequencies among many non-Jewish groups in the Middle East and surrounding areas[1]. It's only somewhat distinctively "Jewish" in areas where Jewish people are a minority like Europe. Furthermore, the emergence date of this haplotype 17-24k years ago predates the existence of the ethno/religious/cultural identity known as "Jewish" by almost 20,000 years. Therefore the reverse/opposite of the statement, something like "you can have Jewish DNA and not be Jewish" is either trivially true or nonsensical. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267
- dumbo-octopus 2y agoScientists have no right to declare what does and does not exist based on what their machines are able to detect. Did gravity not exist before the LHC was constructed and the Higgs data analyzed? Jewish DNA is that which has descended from Abraham, through Isaac, to Jacob and the Jewish nation. Gravity is an attraction between masses. These things exist – regardless of your machines’ proclivities.
- jjk166 2y agoIf you personally are a direct descendant of Abraham, or any other specific individual who lived approximately 3000 years ago, statistically you do not carry any DNA from that ancestor. While there are some nuances relating to differences in how the different sexes pass on their genes, as a rough approximation you carry half the base pairs of each of your parents, who each carry roughly half from their parents, and so on. So you carry 1/2^n base pairs from an individual n generations before you. The human genome is 3 billion base pairs, meaning in 31 generations the odds of having a single base pair from a specific ancestor is about 50%. 3000 years is about 120 generations, so your odds of having a basepair from a specific ancestor that far back are about 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The only exceptions that matter on that timescale are the y-chromosome along the male-only line descent and the mitochondrial DNA along the female-only line of descent.
- pvaldes 2y agoThere is not such thing as "Jewish" DNA. Is a culture and religion, but not a fully different race. Some genes could be in the past more represented, but it was just "Mediterranean dotation". A mix of European, African and Asian. Today is much more mixed fortunately.
- grumple 2y agoYou are wrong on this point. Genetically, Jews are as distinct as any other race (and the world's obsession with Jews mean that you can find plenty of studies on Jewish genetics). Jews take DNA tests and get marked as "Ashekanzi Jewish" (or other Jewish type) on tests like 23andme.
- dumbo-octopus 2y agoWhat would you call that genetic information which was passed down from Israel to his twelve children’s tribes?
- pvaldes 2y agoI would call it barely distinguishable from the genetic information from their close neighbors. Now compare it with DNA from native Australians for example and you will find a much different picture. Having in mind that we share a majority of our genes with other mammals, and almost all with chimps, so the range of allowed variation among people is in itself small.
- endtime 2y ago> Being Jewish, and having some Jewish DNA: are they the same thing? Judaism is based on matrilineal descent, so depending on where the DNA comes from, yes.
- tlogan 2y agoI’m really confused by this argument. How does it account for the Apostle Paul?
- User23 2y agoJewishness by matrilineal descent was a later Rabbinic innovation, probably around the third century. In Paul’s day it was still patrilineal. Even today your tribe is patrilineal.
- aksss 2y agoI’m confused by your question. Paul was from Tarsus, a Roman citizen, and brought Christianity to the gentiles/goyim, but was himself a Jew, from a Jewish family, and of long Jewish descent. Maybe I’m not understanding the implications in GP that you’re seeing? But I’m interested in seeing what you’re seeing.
- endtime 2y agoIt's not an argument, it's just a definitional thing, and I don't know much about Christianity or Paul but I don't see why it should have to "account" for him.
- wslh 2y agoAlmost anyone could convert to Judaism but Judaism is not a proselitist religion.
- netdevnet 2y agoWhat exactly do you mean by "where there DNA comes from"? I smell some kind of biology oversimplification here but I will hear you first
- 2y ago
- nudpiedo 2y agoI've read the new in spanish, it was not just labeled as jewish but as sefardic jewish line (the one particular from spanish jews). Most of them converted to christianity (the called "new christians") and remained in Spain. On the other hand, Jewish were expelled from the whole italic peninsula (including Genoa, etc) after very extreme period of persecution 2 centuries earlier.
- GloomyBoots 2y agoThere’s also the phrasing “compatible with Jewish origin”. That doesn’t mean that he definitively has Jewish DNA either, especially given that there are no specifically Jewish haplogroups. This whole thing seems very premature until autosomal analysis is performed.
- Philadelphia 2y agoAs a person with Jewish ancestry from the Italian peninsula in the 15th Century, I can say there are some other issues with this.
- pvaldes 2y agoA good point. I don't recall using a single Jewish reference in the things that he discovered. Where is the "Island of Januka"? Everything suggests that he adopted a full Christian lifestyle so, is somebody still a Jewish if he choose not to live as one?.
- netdevnet 2y agoYou can be a secular one, the same way many christians are. But often when people say x person is Y-ish, it just means that they have Y ancestry rather than they living under the cultural norms of Y