Talk:Israelites/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Map

‎@Newmancbn:File talk:12 Tribes of Israel Map.svg, says:"What's the background on this map? It seems inaccurate as a modern interpretation of the Biblical record. For instance, on at least one of the particulars where it differs from the Lotter map, the latter is in fact more consistent whth the Biblical account (which, unless there are other sources not mentioned in the Tribal allotments of Israel, I assume are meant to be the map's origins). Specifically, Joshua 12:1 makes it clear the Transjordanian territory should extend as far north as Mount Hermon, well north of the Sea of Galilee, unlike in this image where the Transjordanian territory ends a bit south of Galilee. Jake (talk) 10:03 pm, 12 October 2013, Saturday (9 months, 31 days ago) (UTC+1)" I noticed that it is widely used, but that doesn't mean it should be used. There is no source for it and it appears to be original research. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This map is relatively accurate. Compare with the link below to the most accurate map available from the Jewish Virtual Library, the same map taught in Israeli schools. The Lotter projection is a map from the 18th century that depicted all of southwestern Syria and Aram as part of the tribe of Manasseh. It was made on the assumption that Biblical Bashan is the modern day Golan Heights. Archeology and textual analysis has disputed this. For example part of this northern Golanic territory includes the Yarmuk River, a river that is not even mentioned in the Tanakh. If the territory of the tribe of Manasseh included a massive river such as the Yarmuk, its name would surly have entered the text, as did literally every other major river in Palestine found among the tribes of Israel. The truth is the most accurate map is not available on wikipedia. The map currently on this page, and the Lotter projection, incorrectly places the tribe of Dan in Jaffa south of Ephraim. Dan was located in the northern point of Israel near the city of Dan. In fact it is the territory of the tribe of Dan that the Tanakh outlines as extending up to Mount Hermon, and to the city of Dan, not the tribe of Manasseh. Now, is it possible the Golan Heights was part of the ancient tribe of Manasseh? Yes it is, especially since Joshua 12, 4 mentions Og the king of Bashan ruling in Hermon. It is more likely however that it was not, but even it was, the Lotter map is so old and so poor by modern standards that the 'shape' of the land is not even accurate to the known shape of the earth. For example the Lotter map depicts the Haifa peninsula as an inlet! It clearly is not a candidate for the face of the Israelites on this page. Even if the map currently here may be ever so slightly inaccurate (the only problem I find is the placement of Dan) it is far better than having no map at all, or a grotesquely distorted one like the Lotter. See also the section השבטים ארץ ישראל (tribes of the land of Israel) in the Hebrew version of this article. Newmancbn (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You can see the Lotter map here and compare:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/1759_map_Holy_Land_and_12_Tribes.jpg

Here is the most accurate map to date:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/tribes/tribemap.gif

Here is he current map used for this page:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/12_Tribes_of_Israel_Map.svg

a. It would be even stranger if the Yarmouk forms the northern border of Manasseh but is not mentioned.

b. Your view is not in tune with article Tribe of Manasseh. It will be nice to see your sources there.

Lotter is definitely worse, except as a "artist's view". trespassers william (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The theory is the northern border of the tribe of Manasseh may have stopped short of the Yarmuk, unlike what is shown on this map, leaving it solidly within Aram. I think there is a chance Manasseh did include the Golan, it is just presently there is no consensus. The Arameans fought with the Israelites in Bashan after the Joshua conquests, so it is also possible the Golan was originally part of Manasseh, but it was subsequently lost, and the Israelite border was pushed south of the Yarmuk early on, which would explain its absence in the text. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07310.html. This article mentions the fighting with the Arameans.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmancbn (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There can never be a consensus so long as a lot of scholars and ordinary people think that this never happened. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

‎@Dougweller: There are no respected archeologists or scholars of any kind who maintain the Israelites did not exist. If they didn't, from whence come their artifacts? Both inert artifacts such as the Siloam inscription, the Merneptah Stele, the Mesha stele, the Kurkh Monoliths, the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, the Tel Dan Stele, the Nimrud Tablet K.3751, the Lachish relief, the LMLK seals, the Azekah Inscription, Sennacherib's Annals, and king Ahaz's Seal, and of course their living artifacts, the Jews and the Samaritans, provide conclusive secondary evidence for the veracity of their history. There are even several events described in Israelite texts once thought to have been completely fictionalized, which have left archeological remains, such as a reference to the exodus of a Semitic people out of Egypt in the 14th century BCE, during a time of plagues, described in the Ipuwer Papyrus, or the reference to the prophet Balaam from the book of Bamidbar in the Balaam inscription. The archeological evidence for the existence of the Israelites is overwhelming. To deny their existence is like denying the existence of the Akkadians, or the Hittites, or the Inca. Their presence in history, and the continual and persistent existence of the Jews, may strike you as disturbing, but that does not mean the Israelites 'never happened'. While the account of history depicted in the Tanakh certainly falls under the scrutiny of secular scholars due to its claims of divine revelation, no one denies the existence of the Israelites, I'm sorry Doug. Newmancbn (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Need to distinguish between "Israelites" and "Jews"

Much of the article - the second half in particular - simply repeats information in the article Jews (and History of ancient Israel and Judah). If this article is to have any reason for a separate existence, it has to treat a separate subject. It can best do that by restricting itself to the concept of Israelites as a holy community. If it can't find its own focus, then it should be merged into those other articles.

In order to find that focus, I've taken this definition of "Israelites" based on the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (I'm not wedded to that source, I'm just trying to find an RS definition): The Israelites, according to the Hebrew bible, were the descendants of Jacob the son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham and Sarah; during the period of the divided kingdom it properly applied only to the inhabitants of the kingdom of Israel with its capital at Samaria; after the destruction of Samaria and the deportation of the northern tribes it became applied to the two southern tribes making up the southern kingdom of Judah; and in the post-exilic period it became virtually synonymous with Jews." (And then there could be paras about the use of the term in the New Testament, and its use in modern Judaism). PiCo (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how a name that means "wrestle with God" became the name of an entire nation. How come Jews are "Israelites" rather than "Abrahamites" or "Yitzhakites" or "Jerusalemites" or even "South Canaanites"? Given the traditional character of Jewish religion, why doesn't the Jewish people call itself the "B'nei Torah" or "B'nei Mitzvot" or something similar (Children of the Torah/ Children of the Commandments) — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 02:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

These are all good questions, but this isn't really the place to ask them. (Try the Jewish Encyclopedia). PiCo (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

the 12 forefathers of the israelite tribes were the sons of jacob, who is known as israel too, so it started as sons of israel, and eventually became israelites. about the other question, there are other names for jews, not only israelites. but they aren't common or even really used, and thus, not really known to someone who doesn't live in jewish community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.225.222 (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

They are good question Rickyrab, and I give you my word I am not being blasphemous, but I was taught a different meaning of the words translated into English as the first book of Old Testament (properly labeled the plural form of the Latin word Genus), from words written in the Torah. The way I was taught, distinguishes between spiritual existence and the times when the spirit -- for a time -- is temporarily Housed in flesh -- through a lease on life so to speak -- but because what a spirit as an individual or entire family is referred to by name, recognizing the difference between spirit alone and the spirit inhabiting a body becomes confusing in the history recorded. So traditional interpretations may have trouble recognizing the subtle key words that signal the point where the record is changes from speaking of a name of a spirit, to the name of a spirit conducting life in a house (spirit inhabiting a body) See Genus chapter 12 verses 5 and 6 (Genesis 12:5-6) and notice the terminology that demarks the line that must be passed through to go from spirit existed in Canaan, to a lease on a house for the spirit (spirit in body which then called Canaanite)Dirtclustit (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

‎@Rickyrab:It is a mighty question indeed, and I think I can give you a brief answer. The name ישראל Yisra'el comes from two northwest Semitic root words ישרה 'Yisra' or 'Yishra' meaning to strive, or to struggle, and the word אל 'El' meaning force, influence, deity, or God. The name comes from a story in the Torah when Ya'aqov (Jacob), whose name literally means 'heal' since he came out of the womb clinging to Esau's heal, had a friendly competitive 'sport like' fight with a malakh, or messenger of God. He won the match and the malakh gave him the name Yisra'el because he struggled with the forces of God and persevered. Remember this fight was not a battle, but a friendly competition, to see how long Ya'aqov could 'hold on'. Since he was able to persist with a powerful malakh for the entire match he was given this name as a compliment to his perseverance in the face of difficulty, much like the Jews have endured massive suffering over the millennia in their quest to remain Israelites and keep their Torah with God. The reason they are not called Avrahamites is because, beside Yiẓḥaq, according to the Hebrew Bible Avraham fathered seven nations, the Ishamelites, the Midianites, the Shuaḥites, the Zimranites, the Jokshanites, the Ishbakites, and the Medanites by his seven other sons, through Hagar and Qeṭurah, Yishma'el, Zimran, Yaqshan, Medan, Midyan, Yishbaq, and Shuaḥ. The reason they are not called Yiẓḥaqites is because Yiẓḥaq supposedly fathered two nations, the Edomites and Israelites, through his twins Esau and Yisra'el born to Rivqa. The reason they are not called Jerusalemites is because Jerusalem was not a holy place to for the Israelites until the time of King David. The reason they are not called Southern Canaanites is because they claim a different lineage. The land of Israel was one of the last places to be fully settled after the Neolithic revolution. The first settled human cities in the middle east were focused around major river systems like the Nile, the Euphrates, and the Tigris. While Israel only had the Jordan river. It was primarily an Egyptian, Akkadian, and Sumerian trade route. The first colonists appear about a thousand years before the Israelites, who are Egyptian colonists that settle along the coast and near the river Jordan. These were the Canaanites. The Israelites claim not to be of north African origin, but instead of northwest Semitic extraction, not from Egypt, but from Sumer and Aram in Arabia. The reason why Israel is not called B'nei Torah or B'nei Miẓwoth is because the Israelites are not a philosophy or belief system, they claim to be a physical nation descended from a single Semitic man named Yisra'el who lived 4000 years ago. While this may not be true for every Jew and Samaritan, it has recently been shown with Y-DNA testing that Jews and Samaritans, as well as Palestinians, share the same unique and very rare 12 marker Y-DNA signature that is not found in high percentages among other populations, indicating all three groups are descended from a single Semitic male ancestor who lived 3500 +/- 500 years ago. Newmancbn (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites

Hi guys, does any of you think that they should be mentioned in the article or is it just me? Because they are indeed relevant and must be at least in in the "see also" section... There seems to be little to no information at all about these peoples' theory and Jewish identity. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering the fact that they're frauds from West African ancestry, and regardless of genetic, archaeological, linguistic and religious evidence contradicting them, they claim that they're in fact the real Jews who trace their ancestry to the Canaanite Israelites of the Levant, is not just absurd, it's startling to see such irrationality regardless of evidence pointing to the Jews and the Samaritans as the descendants of the Canaanite Israelites, also of course their proximity to descendants of other Canaanites, like the Phoenicians i.e the Lebanese. In short, no, they don't belong here, it's like claiming that the native Americans are descendants of the Israelites according to the Mormons, regardless of evidence contradicting them. Guy355 (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Shalom11111: The term 'Hebrew Israelites' doesn't even make sense, its redundant, similar to a double negative, like saying 'that ain't no good'. The Israelites are Hebrews, there's no need to specify they are the 'Hebrew' Israelites, I mean, compared to what other kind of Israelite? The term 'Israelite Hebrews' would make a bit more sense, since there were other Hebrew nations like the Ishmaelites and Edomites. Its as stupid as saying the 'Asian Koreans' or the 'African Zulu'. --Newmancbn (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shalom11111: if you put an article about them you have to put an article about all the other groups with the false claim. for example the celts, also claim the same.

I am confused about this sentence

This sentence: ...Jews are descended from the southern Kingdom of Judah (alongside the remnants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who migrated to their Southern counterpart and assimilated there)

With the reference: According to the Books of Chronicles chapter 9 line 3, the Israelites, who took part in The Return to Zion, are stated to be from the Tribe of Judah alongside the Tribe of Simeon that was absorbed into it, the Tribe of Benjamin, the Tribe of Levi (Levites and Priests) alongside the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, which according to the 2 Kings 7 were exiled by the Assyrians. (The Biblical scholars Umberto Cassuto and Elia Samuele Artom claimed in their book "The Books of Kings and Chronicles in modern view" (1981) these two tribes' names to be a reference to the remnant of all Ten Tribes that was not exiled and absorbed into the Judean population)

The Kingdom of Judah included the tribes of Benjamin, Simeon, and the Levites, they were not 'absorbed' into the Jews from the northern kingdom, they were from the southern kingdom originally. So this statement seems kind of redundant, and actually incorrect, unless I am missing something. It is also already known the names of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh are used as a reference to all of the lost northern tribes, collectively called Joseph and contrasted with Judah. Maybe I just don't understand what is trying to be said. Chronicles states there were Ephraimites and Manassehites living in Jerusalem, does Cassuto and Artom claim part of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were absorbed into the Jews? If that is the case, then its totally relevant, if its not then I just don't get it.--Newmancbn (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

All seems in place. The verse goes:

3 And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh.

To answer the question what ethnic groups descended from which tribes, Wikipedia first points out in the ref that Judah in the verse refers to descendants of what was earlier regarded as the separate Judah and Simeon (first "absorbed"). And then points out that Ephraim and Manasseh refers to immigrants from all ten (nine) tribes of the north. At the time the verse refers to, Ephraim and Manasseh have not absorbed into Judah as much as Simeon had already (as they are still named), but obviously, later on they did (second "absorbed", "assimilated")(and Benjamin did too). All became one Jewish nation, while those descendants of the ten north tribes, which never emigrated to Judea, were exiled and did not remain Jewish. (Or, according to the rest of the section, became mostly Samaritans, or maybe re-embraced Judaism under one of the greater Jewsih kingdoms of the following centuries, but at this point there was no telling what tribe their ancestors belonged to...).

I'd say the words "which according to the 2 Kings 7 were exiled by the Assyrians" make it a bit confusing, but there is something else. trespassers william (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense--Newmancbn (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Buba clan

Removed claim that they are accepted as Jews. Having the Cohen Modal Haplotype shows the area they or rather some of their ancestors came from, but doesn't make them Jews. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This brings this in line with Lemba people which points out that the % in the Buba clan does not prove they are Jews. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

‎@Dougweller:You are correct in that having the CMH certainly does not make someone a Jew, or even prove an Israelite origin. In the case of the Buba clan however, over 50% of the men have the 12 marker CMH, which would not be strange except 1.) they are in southern Africa (the 12 marker CMH is a distinctly northwest Arabian haplotype), and 2.) they retain Hebraic customs and an oral tradition of being descended from the Israelites. The DNA results of the Buba clan does indeed strongly indicate, if not verify, Israelite ancestry. The reason is this. Y-DNA passes mostly unchanged from father to son. If two people have a 12 for 12 Y-DNA marker match it means there is an enormously high chance they share a recent paternal ancestor sometime in the last couple millennia. When the Cohen Modal Haplotype was first plotted out, it was only a 6 maker grouping, now it has been extended to a 12 maker haplotype, and we are working on developing higher resolution Cohen Modal Haplotypes. This is significant because to share an exact 6 for 6 maker match is not that remarkable. With the CMH it basically means both people are Arabian in origin, but to share a 12 for 12 or 11 for 12 marker match, as is the case with the Buba and the Jewish Kohanim, is rather extraordinary. It means they share a recent Semitic male ancestor sometime in the last 3500 years +/- 500 years (exactly at the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel), this in combination with their oral tradition of specifically being of Israelite extraction, in addition to their Hebraic customs such as circumcision, their abhorrence of non-kosher meat, the observance of a weekly day of ceasing from activity, the slaughter of animals by slitting the throat with a razor (a practice that is distinctly Arabian and non-African), and their strict monotheistic worship of a being they call Nwali (possibly from AdoNaI or YehoWah?), all make it very difficult for this group to have originated from non-Israelites. Also, there have been no recorded massive population shifts out of Arabia and into Sub Saharan Africa in history, and the only national group that may be a candidate are the Israelites during the Babylonian and Assyrian exiles, and the Jews during the Roman exile. No other Arabian ethnic groups have been exiled from the peninsula in history. It has never been claimed they are accepted halakhically as Jews. The Jews are an ethnoreligious group that the Buba clan are not currently a part of. Their DNA does not reveal they are Jews, it reveals they are authentic descendants of an Israelite population, and the difference is substantial.--Newmancbn (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No it does not reveal that. You are claiming there were Israelites 3500 years ago, and that is certainly disputed. You are claiming that a 3500 year old common ancestor must have been an Israelite, again disputed. You are combining sources to make an argument, and that is original research. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Modern ethnic groups indicated to be of Israelite origin by genetic and historical evidence: Jews, Samaritans, Palestinian Arabs, Bene Israel, and the Buba clan

I suggest including the section, and also having a paragraph where the opposing view, with sources, can be presented. Currently there are 12 peer reviewed scientific papers cited, that demonstrate a strong link between the ethnic groups listed above and the ancient Israelites, as well as 5 news articles from respected papers, and 1 book. This is not original research, or a crackpot theory, it is accepted by the vast majority of geneticists and anthropologists specializing in the migration patterns of Jews, ancient Israelite studies, and the history of ancient Palestine. Sources have been provided. I suggest that the opinions of the respected scholars who disagree be listed with their sources. At the end of the current section I have 15 citations listed, which I think is ridiculous, unnecessary, and aesthetically unappealing, but they were added due to the continual call for more scientific studies from the talk page, hopefully it can be reduced to a reasonable number. If anyone has any problems with the current text, please provide an alternate version below. The citations are listed first, followed by the section.

PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES DEMONSTRATING THE ISRAELITE ORIGIN OF THESE ETHNIC GROUPS

Roper, Matthew. "Swimming in the gene pool: Israelite kinship relations, genes, and genealogy." The FARMS Review 15.2 (2003): 129-164.

Levy-Coffman, Ellen. "A mosaic of people: the Jewish story and a reassessment of the DNA evidence." Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1 (2005): 12-33.

Kleiman, Yaakov. DNA & tradition: the genetic link to the ancient Hebrews. Devora Publishing, 2004.

Le Roux, Magdel. "The Bhuba: a paternally inherited Jewish priesthood in Southern Africa?." Ekklesiastikos Pharos 92 (2010): 286-304.

Thomas, Mark G., et al. "Y chromosomes traveling south: the cohen modal haplotype and the origins of the Lemba—the “Black Jews of Southern Africa”." The American Journal of Human Genetics 66.2 (2000): 674-686.

Nebel, Almut, et al. "High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews." Human genetics 107.6 (2000): 630-641.

Lucotte, Gérard, and Géraldine Mercier. "Y-chromosome DNA haplotypes in Jews: Comparisons with Lebanese and Palestinians." Genetic testing 7.1 (2003): 67-71.

Nebel, Almut, et al. "The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East." The American journal of human genetics 69.5 (2001): 1095-1112.

Shen, Peidong, et al. "Reconstruction of patrilineages and matrilineages of Samaritans and other Israeli populations from Y‐Chromosome and mitochondrial DNA sequence Variation." Human mutation 24.3 (2004): 248-260.

Egorova, Yulia. "The proof is in the genes? Jewish responses to DNA research." Culture and Religion 10.2 (2009): 159-175.

Parfitt, Tudor, and Yulia Egorova. "Genetics, history, and identity: the case of the Bene Israel and the Lemba." Culture, medicine and psychiatry 29.2 (2005): 193-224.

Behar, Doron M., et al. "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people." Nature 466.7303 (2010): 238-242.

RESPECTED NEWS SOURCES

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8550614.stm

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132800#.U-_lOGBZ1SA

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/The-lost-Palestinian-Jews

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familylemba.html

BOOK

Goldstein, David B. Jacob's legacy: a genetic view of Jewish history. Yale University Press, 2008.

NON-SCHOLARLY MEDIA

Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQCr7GaVMWA

Y-DNA testing and database: https://www.familytreedna.com/faq-markers.aspx https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Samaritan/default.aspx?section=yresults; https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Samaritan/default.aspx?section=ysnp https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Samaritan http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-and-you/genetics-101/more-than-just-a-parable-the-genetic-history-of-the-samaritans/

While the scholarly consensus has been that Jews are descended from the southern Kingdom of Judah (alongside the remnants of the northern Kingdom of Samaria who migrated to their southern counterpart and assimilated there), until the 20th century there was no consensus on the origin of the Samaritans, or the fate of the northern Israelite kingdom. Today one leading opinion is that Jews and Samaritans, as well as large segments of other ethnic groups including the Bene Israel of India, the descendants of the Marranos from Iberia, the Buba clan among the Lemba of South Africa, and 85% of Palestinian Arabs, are the authentic remnants of Israelite populations. Some scholars have contested this, and hold the opinion that some of these groups do not have any historic connection to the ancient Israelites. Jewish religious scholars often citied the assertion that Samaritans were foreigners sent from Assyria to repopulate Samaria. According to the Annals of Sargon II, Sargon only exiled 27,290 people of the Kingdom of Samaria, possibly just from the aristocracy, the monarchy, and the priesthood. The 19th century discovery of the Phoenician script in the region, sometimes referred to as the Paleo Hebrew script, for example in the Gezer calendar and the Siloam inscription, suggested that the Samaritan alphabet had an Israelite origin independent of the Jews.

− − Recent genetic testing has shown that Jews and Samaritans, as well as the previously mentioned ethnic groups, share a unique 12 marker Y-DNA signature that can be identified as variants of the Cohen Modal Haplotype, strongly indicating a common paternal lineage from a single recent Semitic male ancestor who lived in the last 3500 +/- 500 years. A 10 for 10 marker match demonstrates a 95% percent probably of two people sharing a common male ancestor in the last 72 generations. This could date the recent common paternal ancestor of many in these groups to even after the traditional time of the Patriarchs, who the Torah asserts lived around 4000 BCE. These genetic results, in combination with the historic links each of these respective ethnic groups has to ancient Israel, strongly indicates they have an authentic Israelite origin.

For further discussion of this topic, and more sources, see the wiki article Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites

Quick response, we have Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites as a see also, it doesn't belong anywhere else. I've started commenting about your use of sources below. This is a major problem. Note also that this is about the historical Israelites, so we need to be dealing with facts, not speculation about the time of the prophets, etc. Besides the bad source, your statement "A 10 for 10 marker match demonstrates a 95% percent probably of two people sharing a common male ancestor in the last 72 generations" followed by "This could date the recent common paternal ancestor" is classical original research which WP:NOR was written to prevent. This is firm policy. I also note that you are using an encyclopedia over a century old.

It isn't clear why " According to the Annals of Sargon II, Sargon only exiled 27,290 people of the Kingdom of Samaria, possibly just from the aristocracy, the monarchy, and the priesthood" is in the article.

Again, you say "The 19th century discovery of the Phoenician script in the region, sometimes referred to as the Paleo Hebrew script, for example in the Gezer calendar and the Siloam inscription, suggested that the Samaritan alphabet had an Israelite origin independent of the Jews." Could we please have quotes from those two sources stating that? The one source I read didn't seem to say that. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This article

looks like it was written by a fundamentalist crackpot. Almost nothing here is reliable.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Nothing is reliable? Besides the debate over the Israelite origin of these various ethnic groups, what else are you referring to?

Whoever wrote the bulk of it had never read or studied Middle Eastern history, Biblical source criticism, ancient archaeology, etc. The map is a total fantasy, like all wikipedia maps for that period. It is written up, not from archaeological material, but from wild inferences made from reading the Bible, which is rather like trying to reconstitute the political structure of Anatolia on the basis of the Iliad. The Hebrew vocalization is screwed up. Jewish tradition (you place great emphasis on tradition) repudiates Samaritans as descendants of the Israelites, branding them Kuthim from Iraq etc.etc.etc. Yawn.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)