Talk:Igbo Jews

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NinaFaget1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Karaite igbo

the link should be removed, the igbo Jews are not karaites, and this group has nothing to do with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.215.131 (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Their website claims they are Karaites, and they say that the rabbinic law is "extraneous." This should be explained as non-traditional Judaism, I think. 85.250.63.230 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My father grew up last century and identified as Karaite. I believe it's simply a calendar alteration that goes back 1000 years or so, plus the patriarchal family structure, otherwise, we grew up with little difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.249.173 (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Bnei Menashe

It says in the article that it's believed that the Bnei Menashe left Africa at some point heading eastwards, and that this is how the presence of the descendants of Menashe could be found in both Africa and E. Asia. Based on what I've read, as well as on common sense, this explanation seems me ludicrous. The Bnei Menashe have no tradition that their ancestors were ever in Africa following Yetzi'ath Mitzraim, so on that basis alone, this claim seems to undermine the oral tradition of the Mizoram bnei Menashe. Beyond that, however, is the fact that, for millennia, people identifying themselves as members of whatever shevet have lived together without the implication that there were ever mass migrations exclusively of members of a single tribe, and nobody's had a problem with it. The closest thing to a genuine claim to such a phenomenon is that the Beta Israel are descendants of Danites who went south instead of north when they were given a new allotment by Hermon to compensate them for the fact that they were never fully settled in Gush Dan bcz of the Plishtim. That other tribes migrated en masse is highly suspect, precisely because there is no record that the tribes ever would have made such a migration, other than Dan, for any imaginable reason. Claims to be members of Menashe or Efrayim, however, that notwithstanding, are not quite so suspect, because denizens of the nation of Israel [i.e., the "Northern Kingdom"], when it was still independent, apparently frequently referred to themselves as Efrayim or Menashim as freely as they referred to themselves as members of their actual tribe. Whether this was bcz of Ya`aqov's blessing on Efrayim or not is only of passing interest to this discussion, but the fact remains, that it has long been accepted that the Persian Jews who claim descent from Efrayim are claiming descent from the dispersal of the Northern Kingdom, rather than from Judæa, rather than actual descent from Ephraim, son of Jacob. Now. Why do I say all this? Because it seems to me that practically all of the current article is written by someone who's trying to establish an authoritative history for the Jews of Nigeria, rather than to report an established authoritative history. That's all well and good, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. In order to maintain Wikipedia's integrity as an authoritative, i.e., reliable, online reference, the WP:NOR policy explicitly prohibits such an exercise. I'm all for research into traditions, but this stuff, which appears to be some kind of synthesis passed off as reliable history, does not belong here. Tomer^talk 05:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Tomer. On your first point, there are CERTAIN Igbos who believe that one group of Igbos is from the tribe of Menashe. They are not connected to the particular Bnei Menashe in India. This is a legend amongst certain Igbo. There are some claims made by early writers such as Nahum Slouschz in his book, Travels in North Africa page 230 that mad the claim that there were certain inscriptions that indicated that members of the tribes of Asher and Zevulun lived in Carthage early on during the foundation of it. I agree with you that if one is trying to write an article about the Igbos there is a format it should follow and should seperate the legend from what has had some actual scholarly writing about it.--EhavEliyahu 07:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh. User:Mophir blanked the article for some reason. I've undone the blanking... the answer is to clean the article up and make it comply with wikipedia standards, not to just summarily blank it. Tomer^talk 02:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Benei Gath, Benei Zevulun, Benei Menashe

I propose to move the details of the 3 lineages from the African Jew page to the Igbo Jews page. Let me know if there's a good reason to leave it where it is. Fayenatic london 10:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Fayenatic london 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Igbo Jew population

There are many Igbos claiming Jewish ancestory then those who are Jewish by faith.

On Igbo Jewish Origins

Some group of Igbo show traces of Jewish origin. A report by an African American Jew on the Ibo Landing in 2002 on the Nri religion of Igbo points out the similarites between the two cultures. But while the Nri may claim Jewish origins, it does not mean that all Igbo groups are Jewish. In fact, the Nri recognise the existence of the Igbo before their arrival in Igboland. There are other migrant groups that settled among the Igbo in Igboland as well and became Igbo. They include Idoma, Igala, Efik, Benin, etc. But the Nri religion and culture being imperial and overlording supressed the original Igbo culture and became dominant, ruling a vast land of what is today middle belt, mid west and deep south of Nigeria. The clash that came with the rise of Arochukwu culture, during the slave trade with the help of Ohafia, Abiriba and Abam warriors, against the Nri culure, still points to the various ideological differences and origins in Igboland.

Igbo Jews, as opposed to Igbo. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Uduma Kalu

U guys need sources

This article needs some sources friends. i saw some strange stuff about forced conversion. i am trying to learn more an not as an editor but as a user it is hard, if you dont have sources.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting DNA Information

I am deleting the DNA information. No DNA testing has been done in Nigeria on the Igbo that shows that they are descendents of Kohanim. The source that was used as source doesn't show this.--EhavEliyahu 15:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In order to clarify my point. I am the one who wrote the PDF article that is being used as the source. I was told by word of mouth that some DNA testing had been done, but I later found out that this was not the case. The article is incorrect because it does not give a reference for the results of such testing. When I began to look into the word of mouth claim I found out that I had been misled. If you want further proof that DNA testing has not been done or yeilded such results email Rabbi Goren, who is the owner of the web-site used as the source. He orignally took the article from a web-site that I owned where I was updating the article based on newer information. He can verify what I am saying on this matter. Also, if there was DNA testing done the artilce does not sufficiently show the details to be the case. When I wrote the PDF I tried to write it in a way that it it was known that it was claimed by some that DNA testing had been done. If you contact Remy Ilona who is also listed as a co-writer of the PDF document he can tell you that though Igbos desire such testing to be done it hasn't been done to date.--EhavEliyahu 11:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any True evidence of Some Igbo Jews being Christian?

As I read about the religion heading, I wondered if that could be an error or not, since I thought that could be because of the widespread common knowledge of Christianity being an Top African Religion on Wikipedia itself, and therefore somehow gone too far with it on Wiki itself. So if you found out that i'm correct just other then answer me edited that out please. And to say as I wondered, how could Jews especially the Igbo Jews be Christian as well be Jews, the Religion they practiced Most of all?-Jana

If you read anything R' Gorin has written about his experiences among the "Igbo Jews", who regard him as their "Chief Rabbi", as it happens, you will almost immediately find that he states that the vast majority of them fit into the category of what normative Judaism defines as "Messianic"...primarily because the vast majority of them believe Jesus is the Messiah. 68.112.202.189 (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any sourcing in the article as far as I can see related to the idea of Igbo Jews being Messianic. Can we get a source on that? Otherwise I'd move for deletion of those claims. Scharferimage (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources for any evidence do not exist.

If there are sources to confirm the anonymous poster's claims of forensic evidence, then please reference them.

Otherwise, the claims by Rabi Behrman, that the there is no evidence should stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kopitarian (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A suggested reference

The Igbos and Israel: An Inter-cultural Study of the Oldest and Largest Jewish Diaspora [Kindle Edition] by

Remy Ilona, an Igbo who says he studied the subject for ten years. 202.179.22.106 (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Misleading title

If they are not recognized as Jews by mainstream Jewish congregations, how come they are named "Igbo Jews" in Wikipedia? This is a clear case of WP:V and WP:NPOV violation - if they are claiming to be Jews, while other Jews don't recognize them as such, Wikipedia cannot take a side (minority position) and define them as "Jews". Alternative names can be what they call themselves "Ndi Igbo Juu" or "Igbo Benei-Yisrael".GreyShark (dibra) 17:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Igbo Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930095816/http://tikvatisrael.org/news/2006/February/47/ to http://tikvatisrael.org/news/2006/February/47/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930095807/http://tikvatisrael.org/news/2006/January/38/ to http://tikvatisrael.org/news/2006/January/38/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930095801/http://tikvatisrael.org/photogallery/index.php?%2Fcategory%2F12 to http://tikvatisrael.org/photogallery/index.php?%2Fcategory%2F12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested link for the "Historical scrutiny" section

Hello Igbo experts. My name is Boaz Eidelberg the son of late Joseph Eidelberg, who spent 20 years of his life exploring the two most puzzling mysteries of the Jewish History. Exodus, the story of 40 years journey the Israelites made from Egypt to Canaan, and the Ten lost tribes of Israel, which were never found. In his book "Bambara", Eidelberg presents interesting findings, which support Olaudah Equiano's conclusion "...to think that the one people (i.e. Igbo Jews) had sprung from the other (i.e. Ancient Israelites)". "Bambara" is written in Hebrew and I realize it is a problem to include it as a reference in this article. I do have a short unpublished English copy from 1977, in which Eidelberg explains his Syllabological approach to historical linguistics, which led him to his surprising historical conclusion. If any of the Igbo experts would like to work with me in uncovering his finding for this article, please let me know. I will be pleased to first mail you the short English highlight of "Bambara", and if there is enough interest to translate the book to English. Thanks. Beidelberg (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Skllagyook (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding WP:RS "Bambara" had 2 editions by reputable publishers, followed by a similar theory of Historical scholar Avigdor Shahan in his Hebrew book "This is Sini" (Hebrew: "זה סיני"). Regarding WP:FRINGE there is no intent to make the African Exodus the main theory. But rather, to provide interesting discoveries which may explain many unsolved puzzles and hopefully motivate additional research to follow up this work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beidelberg (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beidelberg: Please read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE again/in full (if you have not). Regarding WP:RS, Joseph Eidelberg was not an expert/had no credentials in any relevant field, neither linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, or history, and his book was not published by a reliable peer-reviewed scholarly source. Whether his book was pubished by commercial publishers is not relevant to whether it is WP:RS, nor does it seem to present a notable theory (engaged with by the scholarly/scientific community). His theory seems to be, not only a minority one, but very far (and radically) outside the mainstream (also see WP:MAINSTREAM). I'm afraid His theory should not be included under the section "Historical Scrutiny" (which would be misleading and WP:UNDUE) because he was not a reputable or qualified scholarly source qualified to offer such "historical scrutiny" or evaluation in that area.

From WP:RS defining RS (a reliable source) on scholarly subjects:

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."

Also, from the WP:FRINGE page

"The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season). Even reputable news outlets have been known to publish credulous profiles of fringe theories and their proponents, and there continue to be many completely unreliable sources masquerading as legitimate."

Regarding notability, the Fringe page explains that a fringe theory may sometimes be mentioned porportionally in context to the degree that it has been engaged with by the scientific community (its notability). But, in cases of fringe theories without notability, the Fringe page also says, "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas."

Joseph Eidelbergs's books made exrtraordinary claims that radically conflict with all that is known and held by reputable scholarship about West Africa and its ethnic groups (and about the Japanese). E.g., the claim that the Bambara speak Hebrew or that they, the Igbo, and the Japanese descend from Israelites is radically and flatly in conflict with everything known about them from genetics, linguistics, and history by reputable scholarship, and seems to fall, un addition to fringe, under several elements of the category of WP:REDFLAG, particularly these (which seem to apply here):

"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[12] Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;

Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people."

Also see the section of Fringe etitled "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories". It states:

"A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable."

Skllagyook (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed references. Unfortunately there is no main stream theory to compare a fringe theory against and make a rational decision if it upsets the main steam or modestly keeps its place.

“CURRENT PROBLEMS IN THE STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT ISRAEL No well-informed biblical scholar of the Hebrew Bible will deny the fact that there are currently problems in the academic study of the history of ancient Is- rael. The depth of these problems has degenerated to a state that some will call a crisis. For a long time many gaps in our knowledge have made it virtually impossible to establish “a master narrative to serve as the basis of our interpre- tation and integration.” The fragmentary nature of evidence (e.g. partial-textual, epigraphical, iconographical, and archaeological) makes things very difficult for historians of ancient Israel.6

6 Ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), viii.. Hugh G. M. Williamson, “Preface,” Beidelberg (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beidelberg: The issue is not so much the "history of ancient Israel" as you put it. The claim that the Igbo, Bambara or Japanese (for example), or their cultures, are descended from Israelites is clearly fringe and radically conflicts with the evidence/research from mainstream sources (regarding the genetic, cultural, and linguistic origins of those groups), and does not have a place in mainstream scholarly debate on the subject. The mainstream view being/supporting the fact that native West African groups such as the Igbo and Bambara and their languages are indigenous to Africa - belonging to the Niger-Congo and Niger-Congo and/or Mande families respectively, and that the Japanese are descended from various ancient indigenous Asian peoples, with no connections to ancient Israel. As mentioned, Joseph Eidelberg was not a qualified expert in any of these fields, and his opinions are not appropriate for the section labelled "historical scrutiny" (which refers modern-era to scholarly opinion om the topic).Skllagyook (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, yet what caught my attention and interest was the starting, highlighted, opening, statement in this article by Olaudah Equiano which falls right inline of Joseph Eidelberg theory with only 2 short references to main stream which dispute it. Beidelberg (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beidelberg: Olaudah Equiano is not a modern source nor a scholarly or scientific one. It (his opinion) is very old and significantly predated the existence of modern disciplines such as modern linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, or genetics (it's an outdated idea, but of historical interest/relevance in this context). The inclusion of his speculation is only to represent the history/origin of the idea (of Israelite Igbo origin). It is not part of any mainstream scholarly debate today nor represented as such. Skllagyook (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the doors here are closed. I will therefore most likely translate the Bambara book to English using Olaudah Equiano opinion as an opening theme. Hopefully the book will give an opportunity to folks in Nigeria and Mail make their own decision. Thanks for your time it did inspire me for action. Beidelberg (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

In reference to a previous comment: "The claim that the Igbo, Bambara or Japanese (for example), or their cultures, are descended from Israelites is clearly fringe and radically conflicts with the evidence/research from mainstream sources (regarding the genetic, cultural, and linguistic origins of those groups). Here is the 1977 linguistics explanation of Joseph Eidelberg "Bambara (A PROTO-HEBREW LANGGUAGE?)" https://josepheidelberg.com/blog/ which was first published yesterday, as a result of this discussion. Beidelberg (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beidelberg: I'm afraid I'm not sure I see the relevance of the link you posted (to a piece by Joseph Eidelberg) to my comment. The claim of the piece, and claims such as it, are in fact regarded as fringe (there is no evidence whatsoever that those groups descend from Hebrews - genetics for example flatly and clearly disprove the claim; none of those groups have Middle Eastern admixture or origins, either in autosomal DNA or in their paternal or maternal haplogroups, nor any genetic commonality with Jews or other Semitic or Levantine peoples). And their languages (by legitimate sholarship) have been found to have no any Semitic affinity (they belong to vastly unrelated language families). Archaeological evidence does not support the claim either; those groups have their own independent histories and are indigenous to their respective regions.

The link you posted (comparing random words) is really not how linguistic relatedness is determined in linguistics (the relatedness of two languages; what linguists call a "genetic" relationship, where two languages ar similar because of a common origin). It is normally determined by comparing features that form the core or foundation of a language, such as basic/core vocabulary and grammar and finding/demonstrating systematic similarities (and systematic sound changes) and determined my large-scale similarities in those areas (coincidentally similar words can often occur in unrelated languages). (And also link/source says "...most of the Hebrew polysyllabic words formed through a combination of Bambara words, have no meaning whatsoever in the modern Bambara language" which seems to beg the question of why one should assume they are connected).

If Bambara and Hebrew were related/had a common origin and had been the same language just a few thousand years ago (within the biblical-timescale) as claimed in the link, they would have a lot more in common than several vaguely similar words. The approach used in the link frankly does not appear very scientific. Bambara is not even in the Afro-Asiatic family (a fairly ancient family in which the Semitic languages belong) - ("Nigero-Senegalese" is not the term used for the family Bambara is in). Hebrew and Arabic for instance have been separated for several thousand years and are still quite similar and clearly related - or Hebrew and Canaanite languages including Phoenician or Aramaic, which are even closer (all being part of the Northwest Semitic branch of Semitic languages. Hebrew and Amharic/Ethiopian Semitic/South Semitic or Hebrew and Akkadian/East Semitic have been separated for even longer, but are all Semitic and are also clearly related. Even the relationship(s) between a Semitic language like Hebrew and non-Semitic Afro-Asiatic language groups such as Berber, Cushitic, Chadic, or Egyptian, is/are also evident and widely acknowledged (and those languages separated from their common ancestor back in the Neolithic period, long before the Bible was written and long before the Hebrews existed as an ethnic group). And all of those (Semitic and other Afro-Asiatic) languages have broad and systematic similarities that indicate their common origin/ancestry.

But my opinion (or any of ours) is not important nor the issue here. On Wikipedia, we (per Wikipedia policies) edit based on what the reliable sources (WP:RS) (from qualified experts) say, and the RS do not take seriously the idea that Bambaras, Igbos, or Japanese are of Hebrew origin. Skllagyook (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The speculation of Olaudah Equiano

Given that the writings of Olaudah Equiano are seen as speculation, what are they doing here? There are one hundred and one groups in Africa who've rewitten their history to show that they're descended from Abraham. All speculation and have no place in Wikipedia. Indeed, Jewish tradition can probably only be traced to after the Exodus story. Francis Hannaway (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)