Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

All 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.






> 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


Scientists 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.


> 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.

Including the term "DNA" in that statement is an anachronism.

Cultural identification isn't a physical law like gravity, regardless of how aggressively or emphatically that may be stated. That doesn't make it unimportant or irrelevant, but it is not a biological fact, but instead a social fact.


Are you specifically claiming that a common ancestor does not exist, or that genetic information does not spread to offspring?

There is no common ancestor. Abraham is a mythological character.

There 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.

What would you call that genetic information which was passed down from Israel to his twelve children’s tribes?

I 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.


The idea being that since you believe it is “barely distinguishable”, it actually does not exist? Odd argument.

To exists is one thing. To be biologically relevant to deserve a new entire category is another very different.

To start, this genes aren't exclusive from the group. And it is not a monofiletic group anymore, because is a religious one and anybody can join it. So from a "taxonomic" point of view is not what we would call a "natural group", speaking genetically.

Is not different than claiming that there is a "Christian DNA". Biologically it does not have any sense.


This argument is very detached from reality. The Jewish tribe is defined as being descended from Israel, with folks independently joining as a rather rare corner case. On the other hand, Christians are defined to be those people who have heard the gospel and chosen to accept Jesus as their Lord.

It’s as if you said my family didn’t share DNA with me because an adoption or two had occurred over the centuries. It’s a bizarre argument that keeps coming up here, I don’t know what the real underlying root of it is.


According to Jewish law, it is, in the case of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, the child is not a Jew.

According to Jewish law, almost anyone can convert to Judaism.

It 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.


Converting 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


David Cross has a funny [bit][1] about whether the reverse is true.

[1]: https://youtu.be/z09So1j4kpk?t=378


Is he not aware of the concept of ethnicity? Native Americans, Romani, Assyrians, Armenians, Kurds, and Sikhs tie religion and ethnicity.

His is a very American perspective.

Also, a comedian spinning his experience into material.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: