Evidence that Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, and Modern day Jews do not descend from Yadavas farmers

[Ehav4Ever]

The R.M124 gene got into Ashkenazi from india.

Your statement is incorrect. RM124 does not originate "from" India. The following disproves your claim here. Wikipedia on Hplogroup R-M124.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The R.M124 gene got into Ashkenazi from india.

Further,

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The R.M124 gene got into Ashkenazi from india.

Also, the further addresses your claim.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Another proof that in Hebrew Mitzrayim is not in India or even near it is the following. In the Book Esther in the Hebrew Text of the Tanakh, India is called (הודו) or (הדו) which is pronounced Hodu.

and again you will notice that Mitzrayim is Egypt.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

One person in particular I remember was a staunch Hebrew Israelite and would go and on about Ashkenazim all the time. I had a conversation on many issues and a few years later I saw her at a Chabad going through a conversion. It made me feel good to see that I was able to show her a more expanded view.

Wow, how wonderful! I'm sure that really challenged her. I know that Chabad doesn't do conversions, so she was very likely involved in TWO synagogues, Chabad for her regular community, and another Orthodox shul that did conversions, which must have been very tough, so she was definitely motivated. It was really awesome that she was open to what you said.

I have not had similar experiences. I keep running into people's Confirmation Bias ALL THE TIME. It's just part of human DNA that when our opinion has been formed, we literally are unable to hear evidence to the contrary. I realize it is not 100% of humans -- there really are those with enough empathy that they can hear other views. So I know that open minded people exist, I just haven't run into them.

I basically come into these forums for myself. I enjoy having my mind stretched. I PREFER to speak to those with whom I disagree, because they challenge me. It forces me to clarify my thinking, and in some cases I have actually changed my mind on major issues. I think about what people said for a long long time, sometimes years. But I do consider their ideas. Only when I see that someone is hopelessly irrational do I shine them on.

 

[Harel13]

Another proof that in Hebrew Mitzrayim is not in India or even near it is the following. In the Book Esther in the Hebrew Text of the Tanakh, India is called (הודו) or (הדו) which is pronounced Hodu.

Arguably, that's not proof because you'd need a living, breathing, Persian period ancient Hebrew-speaker to tell you that Hodu = India. There's no evidence from the text itself that demonstrates that when ancient Hebrew-speakers from the Persian period said "הדו" they were referring to the region of what is now India. The Targum on Nevi'im is an ancient source but still authored centuries after Esther. A traditional Jew would be more likely to accept that as evidence but others are less likely to.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Arguably, that's not proof because you'd need a living, breathing, Persian period ancient Hebrew-speaker to tell you that Hodu = India. There's no evidence from the text itself that demonstrates that when ancient Hebrew-speakers from the Persian period said "הדו" they were referring to the region of what is now India. The Targum on Nevi'im is an ancient source but still authored centuries after Esther. A traditional Jew would be more likely to accept that as evidence but others are less likely to.

Actually, if you go back to what I stated. "Another proof that in Hebrew Mitzrayim is not in India." I already established that the word Mitzrayim was not held by any local culture to be in India. That is the starting point.

In terms of how India was called in other local languages here are some secondary points. I.e. if someone wants to claim that in the times of the Torah Mitzrayim was understood to be in India and that ancient Ivrim were originally from there is no source in the Tanakh to support it and secondary the common Jewish understanding of the text is that Hodu is either in India or in the Indus region.

In terms of needed some from the time to Esther and Mordechai to spell out that Hodu is in India. I don't think that is necessary when people from the exact area and Jewish community of that area exist with a mesorah as to the location. Even if a non-traditional Jew would have a hard time with the claim that the Torah was authored by someone that meant that Mitzrayim was India.

Also, when we look at how India was called by other locals get the following.

Egyptian hieroglyphs on the Statue of Darius I, circa 500 BCE

H-n-d-wꜢ-y - which is not anywhere near mitzrayim in pronuciation/consanants.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I know that Chabad doesn't do conversions, so she was very likely involved in TWO synagogues, Chabad for her regular community, and another Orthodox shul that did conversions.

No. She didn't have ot be a part of two communities. In Brooklyn the way it worked back then was that the Beith Din had to include the Cheif Rabbi of Brooklyn because he was on the Israeli Rabbinute's list. The other rabbis could be from Chabad. There are other Chabad's that can do conversions. It is all about who is on the Beith Din.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Right. And the King of England is a descendent of King David. rolling eyes.

That's clearly true. Why else the remarkable similarity between Britain and brit am?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Arguably, that's not proof because you'd need a living, breathing, Persian period ancient Hebrew-speaker to tell you that Hodu = India. There's no evidence from the text itself that demonstrates that when ancient Hebrew-speakers from the Persian period said "הדו" they were referring to the region of what is now India. The Targum on Nevi'im is an ancient source but still authored centuries after Esther. A traditional Jew would be more likely to accept that as evidence but others are less likely to.

You also have to consider that based on the text, we don't have any proof that any of the conversations in the text took place in Hebrew. So, it could be less about what a Hebrew speaker of the time thought, but instead what a Jew of the Persian empire thought or understand. I think given the information I provided above it is a lot more likely that Hodu is describing a location either in India or really near it rather than the word Mitzrayim in Ancient Hebrew.

What we do know is that the text gives us enough information to conclude that most likely Kush was on one side of the kingdom and Hodu was on the other side of it and again whether or not one wants to say Hodu was exactly what we modernly say is India, we can't deny that there is nothing in the Hebrew text that points to Mitzrayim being in India or that the Ivrim originally where all from India.

 

[Harel13]

Actually, if you go back to what I stated. "Another proof that in Hebrew Mitzrayim is not in India." I already established that the word Mitzrayim was not held by any local culture to be in Egypt. That is the starting point.

I don't understood. Mitzryaim ≠ Egypt?

In terms of how India was called in other local languages here are some secondary points. I.e. if someone wants to claim that in the times of the Torah Mitzrayim was understood to be in India and that ancient Ivrim were originally from there is no source in the Tanakh to support it and secondary the common Jewish understanding of the text is that Hodu is either in India or in the Indus region.

We do know that Egypt had different names in pre-Hellenistic antiquity, it wasn't just variants of MSR. For example, Kemet. That's a vastly different name. One could easily argue that in the Persian period Hodu was another name for Egypt.

In terms of needed some from the time to Esther and Mordechai to spell out that Hodu is in India. I don't think that is necessary when people from the exact area and Jewish community of that area exist with a mesorah as to the location. Even if a non-traditional Jew would have a hard time with the claim that the Torah was authored by someone that meant that Mitzrayim was India.

Note that I'm not arguing that Mitzrayim = India. I'm playing devil's advocate here regarding the meaning of the term Hodu. P'shat it's more vague than what we may think.

H-n-d-wꜢ-y - which is not anywhere near mitzrayim in pronuciation/consanants.

Nor is K-m-t. And yet...
Also, Hodu doesn't have a נ' in the middle. While I'm sure there are reasonable etymological explanations for this, my point is, as above, that it's not such a clear term.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

This is what I mean about based on the text, Kush appears to be one side of the Empire and Hodu on the other.

So, what I am saying is that if we can agree that Kush is on the western side of the Persian Empire it is pretty clear that Hodu most likely was on the other side it that would make Hodu more India, or near it, than Mitzrayim.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I don't understood. Mitzryaim ≠ Egypt?

The claim that inspired this thread is that Mitzrayim, based on the Tanakh, is in India and that we Jews have been concused on its location - i.e. we got it all wrong and think it is Egypt. See where this going? I corrected what I wrote to reflect what I stated here.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

We do know that Egypt had different names in pre-Hellenistic antiquity, it wasn't just variants of MSR. For example, Kemet. That's a vastly different name. One could easily argue that in the Persian period Hodu was another name for Egypt.

So, are you saying that the authors of the Tanakh intended India when the wrote Mitzrayim? Also, the Amarna letters did they also mean India when they wrote about mitzrayim being in charge of Canaan?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Note that I'm not arguing that Mitzrayim = India. I'm playing devil's advocate here regarding the meaning of the term Hodu. P'shat it's more vague than what we may think.

But that was not the point. Again, the first statement I wrote was "Another proof that in Hebrew Mitzrayim is not in India or even near it is the following."

If you and I agree that Mitzrayim is not India, then we can call Hodu the planet Mars. Yet, at the end of the day there is a lot more evidence that most Jews have historically called India Hodu and have never thought that the Tanakh references of Mitzrayim where India.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Nor is K-m-t. And yet...
Also, Hodu doesn't have a נ' in the middle. While I'm sure there are reasonable etymological explanations for this, my point is, as above, that it's not such a clear term.

Right, but if we take all of this and say, "Okay, so were the ancient Ivrim Yadava Farmers? Does the Tanakh's use of the word Mitzrayim mean India? Are there any ancient Jewish or Middle Eastern cultures that support conclusions of yes to both questions?" Essentially, what I am saying is there is nothing to support that yes and so much to support a big fat:

 

[Ehav4Ever]

P'shat it's more vague than what we may think.

We could argue that all Peshat is vague and that no one understands the language at all. Every aspect of the Hebrew language, like any language, is based on some type of Mesorah. Whether we accept what particular people, internal to the text, say about the meaning of any word could be up for debate, even the ones we consider mondane. Literally, we could conclude that no Jew ever understood Hebrew and the intent of any of the authors was not transmitted to anyone. Doesn't make any sense based on historically how most Middle Eastern Jewish communitie transmitted linquistic and historical information, but I am game for assuming.

That is why I start with the following question. What is the early text to address the meaning of words and grammer in the Tanakh. If that text is Jewish in nature and comes from a particular type of Jews then I think most scholars have to respect the earliest source material, even if they "personally" disagree with it.

 

[JustGeorge]

**Moved To Religious Debates**​

 

[Harel13]

What is the early text to address the meaning of words and grammer in the Tanakh. If that text is Jewish in nature and comes from a particular type of Jews then I think most scholars have to respect the earliest source material, even if they "personally" disagree with it.

Oh, if only that was true.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Why was this thread move to religious debates? I started it to be a discussion in the Orthodox Judaism DIR.