DNA
This evidence was never available in the past so everything was left purely to best-guess work and putting historical evidences together to build the narrative. The accuracy of the claims made and the people who were transmitting the information from one person to the next also needed to be looked at.
All these factors came together to build a picture which either fed into one’s own bias or gave one side the ability to deny the opposing side the opportunity to cast doubt over the evidence.
An example of the Eurocentric view, prior to modern science, was that sub-saharan Africans (Bantu) were the missing link between ancestor primates and modern humans. This view was the dominant view for many years. No one questioned this view until much later Why ? Because it was the Eurocentric or the colonialist’s view. European orientalists who pushed the very crude idea of Darwinian evolution believed this to be absolutely true. The colonised minds of those subject to European colonialism, through the medium of orientalist academia, would only accept the views of their masters as having any value therefore any fact that came to present an alternative picture to the Eurocentric narrative was always deemed to be farfetched or simply wrong.
The advent of DNA and its uncompromising nature would place many Eurocentric truths into the fire of truth.
DNA science has been developing since the middle of the twentieth century but has really come to fruition towards the beginning of the twenty first century. The genome has been mapped. Much research and samples have been taken throughout the world, giving the scientist the opportunity to compare and contrast different migration patterns and populations. The DNA has also refuted some outdated ideas concerning groups of families and populations and their origins.
DNA completely refuted the idea that Bantu sub-Saharan Africans were the link between modern Humans and the so called great ape ancestors.
DNA proved that not only were they not the first proto humans but also that the mutation they carry was not an early mutation but a more recent one which had come from earlier mutations.
Also, it revealed that the Bantu family had walked into Africa and wasn’t always in Africa as first thought thus we have the Bantu expansion.
DNA is found in every cell in the Human body and is packed tightly with information that is the code to produce you as a human being. Within that code is the signature of your parents and their parents before them and so on. In human reproduction 50% of your genes come from your father and 50% comes from your mother. The male carries a Y chromosome and the female carries an X chromosome. A part of the chromosome carries information from one generation to the next unaltered so that a parent and grandparent and great grandparent can be identified exactly because they will have exactly the same DNA signature within their chromosomes.
It is this technology that has allowed scientists to trace and discover ancient relationships between populations that were thought to be completely unrelated.
The DNA signature which is called a haplogroup allowed scientists to track and map population migrations over time and be able to say with certainty that people who were previously not deemed related because of distance geographically and the alteration over time of phenotype to be related. It is this science which has established that the Bantu and other populations were actually related.
The DNA evidence proved that the Bantu populations in sub-saharan Africa are related to some southern Europeans, Jewish and other Semitic groups in the so called Middle East region.
This established beyond a shadow of a doubt the relationship between these three groups.
This confirmed the oral tradition of Bantu tribes that they travelled from the north east and resettled in mainland Africa.
The DNA data also allowed the scientist to establish how far back in time the groups were together as one group before they split away from each other. It was estimated that through a particular technique that counted the amount of times chromosomes had been divided the distance in time of the groups’ separation. The study found that the Bantu tribes and the Jewish groups had common ancestors within the last 1600 years.
This is conclusive evidence that they were the same group well after all the events which would be classified as biblical and historical.
This alone would validate the claims of the Bantu groups to being members of the Children of Israel who had come down from the north and resettled in the Niger Delta region and then spread out throughout the rest of Africa.
Also the genetic study would also shed light on the other puzzles that remained such as the drastic change of phenotype that surrounds the people of the Israelite Diaspora.
As we have found with the groups of Jewish communities in Europe and parts of Asia, it is plain to see and understand that those groups were not originally as they appear. As they moved into those areas they mixed with those populations and assimilated to with them.
The Hebrew groups who moved in to West and Central Africa really did not mix with any other foreign populations as can be seen in their Y-DNA. The genetic record shows virtually no mixing whatsoever due to the uniform haplogroups within the Bantu people.
This is in contrast to the Jewish groups that moved into Europe and Asia as well as those who remained in the Levant and Arabia who have a high proportion of other Y-DNA markers within those populations. Inside the European Jewish populations there is no less than 8-9 haplogroups and the other populations have multiple haplogroups.
From this data it can be put forward that when they were altogether the haplogroup would have been the haplogroup that is common to all populations today. This then allows us to eliminate the other haplogroups to which were foreign and mixed in after the main group subdivided. The only haplogroup that is common to all groups is E and to a much lesser extent J. But E is far more widespread than J.
As E is the most common and other haplogroups are foreign to the original main group it becomes easier to understand which groups mixed and which groups didn’t mix or who mixed the least.
The Bantu groups which have far less foreign haplogroups can be considered to have remained purer than the other groups and thus would appear to be more similar in appearance to the original group.
It is very rare to have such a plethora of evidence corroborating a claim but then the matter is one that is highly sensitive and explosive in equal measure. The implications are far reaching and some may consider them dangerous but they are founded upon a very solid base. But, evidence isn’t the problem but the ability for people to accept what all the evidence is saying.
The claim is NOT that they are Jewish but the claim is that they are the Children of Israel as an ETHNIC IDENTITY instead of a member of a rabbinical religion.
Everyone who claims to be Jewish according to the legal parameters of the Jewish religion or their particular sect of Judaism they follow, is a Jew.
Therefore technically there is no Jewish DNA as anyone who is a Jew has Jewish DNA. Within Orthodox Judaism there are many different Y-DNA haplogroups which exist therefore it is an error to speak of being ethnically Jewish.
Being from the Children of Israel IS an ethnicity which comes from a singular source and shares a singular heritage. Any group of people who claims this identity must also mirror to some degree a homogenous genetic identity.
[1] 2011 Harvard Medical School
Oral ——– Scriptures ——– DNA