Rabbinical courts to stop automatically placing financial burden on divorced fathers.02:39 02.12.15 | 0 comments
No Koestler is not the only one, but most of the theories have been thoroughly discounted for precisely the reason I stated before: This powerful empire - which certainly had Jewish kings and a Jewish aristocracy - left no linguistic or cultural mark on Ashkenazi Jews. As for your other "evidence" - Ashkenaz wasn't a tribe, but it was a place listed in the Bible. The term is meant to be descriptive and not a lineage. I'm not sure who Sarah really was or if there really was a single matriarch Sarah and a single patriarch Abraham. I also don't have any idea what Jesus looked like. As for the term Jew, if you had studied a bit before spewing, you would know that it comes from the Latin for Judea ? Iudea, the land of the tribe of Judah (Heb. Yehuda). We don't call ourselves "Jews", we use the term "Yehudi" (and early Zionists even used the term "Ivri" or "Hebrew"). Beyond all this there is the recent scientific evidence. DNA testing has shown that most Jews throughout the world are more closely related to each other than to the communities where they have lived for centuries. That is, a Jew from Poland has a closer genetic affinity to a Jew from Iraq than he does with a non-Jew from Warsaw. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for Khuzars, although I'm sure there were some who integrated into the dominant Jewish community that was just starting to come into Eastern Europe at the fall of the Khuzari Empire. Most important genetic testing has indicated that, of all the non-Jewish peoples in the world, Jews are most closely related to Palestinian and Syrian Arabs.