I love opinionated non-PC people. This blog is to vent my opinions on life, the universe and everything. Which is 42 which in gematria is "My Heart" (LBY) according to Rabbi Abulafia. The Divine Heart is the centre of everything.

Thursday, December 07, 2017

Daughters of Shem: mt-dna Tree

It would seem that all women descend today in their direct female lineage from Lebab the Righteous (Tzedeklebab) the wife of Shem one of the sons of Noah. The direct female lineages of Adan the wife of Japheth (Neanderthal) and Nahal the wife of Ham (Denisovan) would seem to have died out. All humans today descend from the three great-granddaughters of Shem and Lebab - Luba, Medea and Neshema the Queen (Milka). Luba married a black descendant of Ham and Nahal, Medea married a red-yellow skinned red haired descendant of Japheth and Adan and Neshema Milka married a white skinned fair haired descendant of Shem and Lebab.

Luba is the ancestress of L3 mt-dna from whom L0, L1 and L2 mt-dna descend. Medea is the ancestress of M mt-dna from whom C, Z, D, E, G and Q descend. Neshema Milka is the ancestress of N mt-dna from whom S,O, R, A, W, I, X and Y mt-dna descend. The Hebrew Matriarch's Leah and Rachel belong to N mt-dna and the Hebrew Matriarch's Bilhah and Zilpah belong to M mt-dna. Asenath the wife of the Patriarch Joseph (R1a y-dna) was the daughter of Dinah who was the only daughter of Jacob and Leah. From Dinah and Asenath descend the haplogroups of W, I, X, N1b and R mt-dna.
(From MITOMAP: A Human Mitochondrial Genome Database, 2008).
This diagramme makes it easier to see that the African L3 and its descendants L1, L0 and L2  with N and M.  L3 mt-dna Eve  may be the top of the mt-dna tree and she may have not lived in Africa at all but one of her L3 descendants (Luba) moved there from Pangaean Australasia and became the African Matriarch among the Hamites. 
Ruth the Moabite descends maternally from Asenath and is the ancestress of B, F, JT, HV, U and P mt-dna haplogroups. From Ruth is descended on the direct maternal line Queen Nefertiti of Egypt. Her daughter Neferneferauten was a female Pharoah who after fleeing Egypt with her daughter to Jerusalem embraced Judaism and became the ancestress of JT mt-dna haplogroup. Another daughter of Queen Nefertiti was Ankhesenamun who was the ancestress of HV mt-dna haplogroup.

From Neferneferauten's daughter Jecoliah the Queen Mother of Judah (JT) descends Princess Jecoliah of Judah a daughter of King Amon of Judah and Queen Mother Jedidiah. From Princess Jecoliah of Judah's daughter Princess Jerusha of the Libyan Milesians (Ma) comes J mt-dna haplogroup and from her other daughter Nehushta descends the T mt-dna haplogroup.

From Ankesenamun's daughter Nefer Hrere Queen of Kush (HV mt-dna) descends Nekaute Kandake (Nekauba) Queen of Egypt and Kush. Her daughter Hephzibah (Hatshepsut) was the Queen Mother of Judah and the ancestress of H mt-dna, another daughter Maatkare Maloteral the Queen of Kush was the ancestress of V mt-dna through her descendant Kara Maat a Libyan Milesian Princess or Queen.

Hephzibah the Queen Mother of Judah was the H mt-dna ancestress of Tzaddah the last Queen of Judah and Kushi the last Queen of Israel. From Tzaddah's daughter Princess Tamar Tia of Tahpanhes in Egypt descends H1 mt-dna haplogroup and from her other daughter Princess Asenath the Beautiful (Scota/ Istnofret) descends H2 mt-dna. From Kushi descended the Chinese Amazon Queens of Zhou of H7 mt-dna and from the Chinese Amazon Duchesses of Zhou of H6 mt-dna. H6 and H7 entered Europe through the Queens and Princesses of the Turks, Mongols and Khazars.

Queen Esther of Persia is the ancestress of I mt-dna and her ancestresses were the maternal line of Benjaminite Princesses who belonged to N1b mt-dna. The maternal descendants of Queen Esther were Bactrian Princesses also descended from Alexander the Great and one maternal lineage of I1b settled in the Hunza Valley as the mystical religious Jewish Queen-Priestesses of Ultar Sar. 

Ruth of Moab had a daughter Tamar Tjani who married Sobekhotep the Prince of Thebes in Egypt. She is the ancestress of Ursa (Ursula) the Princess of Kush whose daughter Eglah of Atlantean Gatherius in Spain was a wife of King David of Israel. Her daughter Dova (Ursa) was the ancestress of U1 and U5 mt-dna and Eglah's sister Adina was the ancestress of U6 mt-dna. Another daughter of Eglah who married Shaushtatar the King of Mitanni (R1a y-dna) is the ancestress of U2 mt-dna through her daughter who married Eriba- Hadad (I2 y-dna) King of Assyria.


The Chronology used here is based on the insights of Velikovsky and Heifetz and the Jewish Seder Olam. The destruction of the First Temple is dated to 460 BC which is around the time of Nebuchanezzar and Rameses II. Pharoah Akhenaten reigned from 743-726 BC. The Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt occurred in 1350 BC in the time of the13th Dynasty Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV Khaneferre. The Exile of the Lost Tribes began in 600 BC.

Monday, November 13, 2017

Jewish R1b DF27 and the Tribe of Simeon: A Hebrew Catholic Interpretation

 Lopo Vaz Sampayo Portuguese crypto-Jewish Governor of India

My mother told me many years ago long before the advent of dna testing or the internet that her father's paternal ancestors came to Norfolk in England from Spain. He thought they had been Spanish Jews or Gypsies. They had arrived in Norfolk from Spain in the 16th century and in 1843 my mother's great-grandfather James had left home as a 16 year old boy for a life in Western Australia.

In order to find out my grandfather's y-dna I had my cousin tested and  we at first were told it was R1b SRY2627 which is a Spanish y-dna which I believe to descend from the Tribe of Simeon that moved into southern France and Northern Spain. Over time with more studies  SRY2627 was found to be a subclade of R1b DF27 which is the marker for the Tribe of Simeon. SRY2627 is a Jewish branch of  the Tribe of Simeon. Deeper dna testing demonstrated that my cousin was R1b FGC11245 which descends from R1b CTS4299. Another Norfolk family called Muse was also CTS4299 that was descended from the Spanish crypto-Jew Bartholmew Mewes (aka Moses (Mousa) Bertran) and was a brother of my grandfather's ancestor Llorens (Luria) Bertran (aka Laurence Bartram b.1538). Their parents were Yochanan Luria (b.1505 Spain) and Antonina Judith Henriquez Bertran of Alayor on Minorca Island near Spain. 

The R1b Jewish project reveals a small cluster of Jewish families from Hungary descended from the Schonberg or Schoenberg family that belonged to the brother clade of CTS4299. This group was R1b BY16148. This Schoenberg family descended from the Spanish Jewish family of Belmonte. Both Schonberg and Belmonte mean Beautiful Mountain or Hill. Abraham Schonberg or Schoenberg was born in Szecseny in Hungary in 1812 and his grandfather was Jacob Abraham Belmonte (aka Franz van Schoonenberg) of Amsterdam (born 1757). 

R1b FGC11245 mutation has obviously occurred in the Bartram family within the last 500 years (unlike the riduculous estimates found on the y-trees based on an evolutionary or molecular clock dating methodology). R1b CTS4299 was formed some time before 1550 but after 1300. The most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of the Bartram, Muse and Schonberg families was Yechiel Luria (b.1300) of Portugal. Thus Yechiel Luria (aka Joao Peres) belonged to the subclade R1b Z207 of R1b DF27. The Parrish family of Norwich in Norfolk descends from Llorens Bertran and his wife Angela Peres a Spanish crypto-Jewish couple. Parrish is an English version of the surname Peres. The Parrish family is also of R1b FGC11245 y-dna. Another son of Yochanan Luria and Antonina Judith Henriques Bertran was Chanan Chai (Channce) Bertran Luria whose son was Cristofer Channce of Hadzor in Worcestershire in England. His descendants used the names Chance, Chancey, Chancy and Chauncey.

Jacob Abraham Belmonte's ancestor Guido Emanuel Belmonte was also known as Guido Schonenberg who was born in 1560. They took the name Belmonte from their ancestress Simcha Belmonte (Guiomar de Eca) who was married to Lopo Vaz Sampayo (1473-1538) 6th Portuguese Governor of India. Strangely he is also my 14 x great-grandfather on my father's maternal side. My paternal grandmother on her father's side descends from Esther Belmonte (b.1663). Lopo in turned on his direct male line descended from Vasco Pires de Sampaio (born 1360) 1st Senhor de Vila Flor whose father was Pedro (Pinchas) de Sotomayor. Pedro was the son of Joao Peres whose Jewish name was Yechiel Luria and was also the ancestor of Yochanan Luria (b.1505) of Minorca from whom my maternal grandfather descends. 

Yechiel Luria (b.1300) was descended from Moses Aaron Luria (b.1200) of Orleans in France. Moses was the grandson of Yechiel of Loire from which the surname Luria derives. Yechiel of Loire's wife was descended from the Jewish Davidic Kings of  Narbonne and his mother from the Davidic Jewish Nasiim of Barcelona. Yechiel was the son of Isaac Bar Shimon (Ibn Shimon) and Chaya bat Yechiel. Chaya's father Yechiel descends from the Barcelona Nassim whose ancestor Hezekiah II ben David was a Babylonian Exilarch. Many claim Davidic status for the Luria family and they do have Davidic status through female Davidic lines but are of the Tribe of Simeon on their male lineage.

The descendants of SRY2627 are not the only Jewish cluster of DF27. The largest cluster is R1b FGC20747. Another Jewish cluster is found under ZZ51. There is also another small cluster under S16864. However the R1b Jewish project has mainly Ashkenazi Jews in these groups and there may be many Sephardi Jews who belong to DF27 and its subclades. 

The Schoenberg's are Ashkenazi Jews who belong to SRY2627 but this is originally a Sephardi Jewish group. My ancestors who belonged to this group were of Sephardi origin. It is common for crypto-Jewish Sephardi families to marry into other crypto -Jewish or Jewish families. This was the case in my grandfather's family. His grandfather James married a crypto-Jewess whose father was of Sephardi Marrano ancestry and her mother a daughter of an Ashkenazi Rabbi. James' grandmother Anna Modin was born an Italian Jewess. My grandfather himself married a wife who was of both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jewish origin.

These few DF27 clusters are Jewish and many of their descendants were crypto-Jews and are today Catholics or Christians. Not all DF27 is Jewish. The majority of DF27 is from the paganised Tribe of Simeon who embraced the Christian religion at a latter date. They are not Jews and are not of Jewish ancestry but they are Israelites from the Lost Tribes. Not all Belmonte's are descendants of the Tribe of Simeon as they have taken their surname Belmonte from their mother just as the family discussed here took it from a female ancestress. So one would expect a number of clusters of Belmonte in any future Belmonte dna project. The Belmonte surname was taken from the Portuguese town of Belmonte which has been a centre of Jewish and crypto-Jewish activity since medieval times. In recent years many of its members have returned openly to their Jewish heritage.

The largest group of y-dna found among Western European Jews, Spanish Jews and Sephardi crypto-Jews is R1b y-dna but they are often left out of the estimates for the amount or percentage for R1b found among Jews as they are automatically assumed to be descended from converts. This is not always the case. The R1b Jewish project is mainly made up of those families of Ashkenazi Jewish background who have no known convert in their male line. There is also a R1b Cohane project which has demonstrated that claimants to Cohen status belong to a two R1b Z2103 subclades that goes back to Temple times.


Beth Eliyahu Synagogue in Belmonte today

Friday, November 10, 2017

Gedmatch, Eurogenes and Shifting Ethnicity

 

I had my double cousins and my dna tested. We tested with Familytree Dna.  When we had our at-dna examined with them for ethnicity we got very different and strange results eventhough we share all four grandparents. Familytree dna then changed how they read our results for ethnicity three times which drastically changed our ethnicities and their amounts. I also tested the results with My Heritage and Dna.land and again very different results. 

I then joined Gedmatch and at last got results that seemed to make more sense. We got these results for George and I from Eurogenes K13 which seems to give us more similar dna ancestry than the  any other algorithms.  I have 48.50% North Atlantic and George 50.12%; I have 23.42% Baltic and George has 25.89%; I have 12.34% Western Mediterranean and George has 11.57%; I have 7.95% West Asian and George has 4.66%; I have 3.81% Eastern Mediterranean and George has 3.88%; I have Red Sea 1.35% and George has 0.35%; I have 0.58% South Asian and George has 1.24%, I have 1.75% American Indian and George has 1.74%; and I have 0.31 Oceanian and George has 0.56 %. 

I must say that this test is the first that gives George and I similar dna ancestry and seems to confirm our genealogy research and even the rumour of our part Western Australian aboriginal ancestress six or seven generations back with our South Asian result and our possible Tasmanian ancestress with the Oceanian results. The Western Mediterranean and American Indian results confirms our Spanish-Mexican crypto-Jewish ancestry in which one of our ancestors General Diego de Ayala was descended from Montezuma. It also confirms our West Asian or Middle Eastern ancestry from our Syrian Jewish ancestry back about 7 generations. The Baltic results would reflect our Eastern European Jewish ancestry. Our Dutch Jewish and R1b Jewish ancestry would be included in the North Atlantic category along with our Anglo-Gaelic (English, Scottish and Irish) ancestry.

Gedmatch is a wonderful free service and I was able to confirm that in my direct male line that I have no non-paternal events back to 3x great grandfather Edward Bloomer who was born in Tartu Estonia in 1798 to an Irish soldier family. His mother Miriam Reizel (aka Mary Rose) had a brother Joseph Rose whose descendant shared some dna with me. Gedmatch indicated we were probably related about 5.2 generations ago. This was pretty accurate. Even though my cousin is also genealogically descended from the Rose family he did not share any at-dna with our 5th cousin. However he did share at-dna with another distant cousin who descends from the uncle of our 3x great grandmother Catherine Thompson b.1804 but I didn't. Gedmatch said he shared a common ancestor with this cousin about 4.7 generations ago. I were able to do this because these relatives had their family tree linked which then helped me to identify our connections. 

I also found another relative on my paternal grandmother's side who descends like us from James Nunn and his wife Sarah Wyeth. She shared quite a bit of  at-dna with my cousin and I and our common ancestor was estimated to be 3.4 generations ago. My amount of shared at-dna was 7 cM = 132.5 cM and my cousin 7 cM = 122.8 cM.

In the end I have worked out that my cousin and I, after examining all the dna results and our genealogy, are about 24% English; 12% Irish and Scottish; 12% Dutch Jewish, German and French; 23%  Eastern European (Baltic) Jewish; 12% Spanish Jewish; 8% Middle Eastern Jewish; 4% Italian and Greek Jewish; 2% Egyptian or Arabian; 1% Western Australian Aborigine (south Asian); 1% Native American and 1% Tasmanian Aboriginal (Oceanian).

I did a little counting of the countries where my ancestors were born and they were certainly mobile. All four of my grandparents were born in Australia. Of my eight great-grandparents 3 were born in Australia; 3 in Ireland; 2 in England. Of my 16 2x great-grandparents 2 were born in Australia; 6 in Ireland and 8 in England. Of my 32 3x great-grandparents 1 was born in Australia; 19 in England; 4 in Ireland; 5 in Eastern Europe; 2 in the Carribean and 1 in Palestine. Of my 64 4x great-grandparents 3 were born in Australia; 3 in America; 2 in Germany; 23 in England; 2 in Holland; 2 in Italy; 5 in Barbados; 1 in Scotland; 6 in Ireland and 1 in Syria. Of my 128x great-grandparents 4 were born in Australia; 7 in America; 27 in Eastern Europe; 49 in England; 2 in France; 6 in Italy; 2 in Scotland; 5 in Germany; 6 in Holland; 4 in Barbados; 3 in Mexico; 9 in Ireland and 2 in Syria. 

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Jewish E-M215 y-dna, Rameses III and Alexander the Great


I date E y-dna to about 2300 BC (rather than the evolutionary dating of 45,000 years ago) to the Javanites of Japheth the son of Noah. They originated in the red Japhethic city of Adan in the Southern Hemisphere when the earth was still one land mass. Some of the Japhethites moved into Europe before the splitting of the  continents at the time of the destruction of the Tower of Babel.


E-M215 I date to around 400 BC (rather than 22,000 years ago) with Rameses III Nectanebo I. Jewish E-M123 originated about 2,300 years ago in Palestine during Second Temple Times from the Samaritan illegitimate son of Alexander the Great who was the son of Pharoah Rameses VI Nectanebo II the son of Rameses III (see Velikovsky). Its main subclade E-M34 emerged in the Palestine about 2,100 years ago. Soon afterwards, M34 split into two originally Jewish branches, M84 and Z841 during the diaspora (or just before) and moved into North Africa and Iberia.  L791 and Z21466 have a mostly European distribution today and their ages point toward a diaspora diffusion after 70 AD. The PF6759 subclade seems to have reached Sardinia after the Roman diaspora of 70 AD. The descendants of L791, Y2947 and Y4971, only appeared after the Bar Kokhva rebellion and diaspora of 135 AD. 

The K257 and Y4970 branch emerged around 300 AD and is found in Iran, Armenia, Turkey, Russia, Greece, Italy and France, as well as other places. It spread to Greece and Italy alongside Jewish groups belonging to J2a1 and T1a-P77 haplogroups. Y6923 also emerged around 600 AD, but became almost extinct due to the persecutions of the Jews. Most modern bearers of this y-dna haplogroup descend from a common ancestor who lived 1ess than 800 years ago, and all are Ashkenazi Jews. The descendants of M123 are of Jewish and Samaritan origins some branches remaining Jewish while others converted and assimilated out of the Jewish communities.



Monday, November 06, 2017

Y-dna and Second Temple Jewish Sects: A Hebrew Catholic Interpretation


The Jews of Second Temple Times that went into the diaspora belonged to predominately J1 (Shammai Pharisees), J2 (Saducees), E1b (Shekhemite Pharisees), R1b Z2103 (Hillel Pharisees and Essenes), G (Hellenist Jews of North Africa and Syria), T and L (the Herodians and Romans) and Q (Benjaminite) y-dna. There was of course some admixture among the groups but this represents the core population y-dna of the sect or group. The Khazar input to Jews is from R1a (Josephites), G (Nahorites), and Q (Benjaminites) y-dna which entered the Jewish community much later in the 8th century. After the diaspora the Hillel Pharisees gradually gathered most Jews under the umbrella of their movement and its transformed observances due to the destruction of the Temple and the exile from the Land of Israel.
 

The bulk of the J1, J2 and E1b y-dna found among the Jewish people comes from the Samaritan converts to Judaism in Second Temple times and just after. However E1b is more complex as the Samaritan E1b is V22 as is those Jews descended from the Shekhemite Pharisees but many other Jews of E1b descend from the Z827 branch of E1b. It is from the Samaritan-Ishmael Cohenim that many Jewish Cohenim descend as well as the priestly Tribe of the Lemba. J1 P58 among Jews represents mainly the Shammai Pharisees descended from the Samaritan High Priest Hananiah and J2 the Saducee Jews descended from the Samaritan priest Zadok (a Samaritan convert of Antigonos of Sokho) a descendant of the Samaritan High Priest Manasseh (J2) son of Sanballat who usurped the older line of Samaritan High Priesthood (J1). The Shekhemite Pharisee Levites (E1b) were descended from the Samaritan Levite clan.The Talmud speaks of seven groups or sects of Pharisees including the Shammai school, the Hillel school, the mystical Essenes, the Shekhemites.
 

The Pharisees who Jesus identified as the 'leaven'[Chametz] were the Shammaites or Shomerim (the observant ones). The Talmud speaks of seven different types of Pharisees. Five of these groups are described in a negative way and they are known as 'Chametz' by Jesus as there were five kinds of "chametz" to be avoided on Passover. One of these groups are called the Shikmi who follow the actions of their founder known as Shekhem or the Shekhemite Pharisee. The city of Shekhem was the Samaritan religious centre and after John Hycanus destroyed their Temple many of the Samaritans entered Judaism. They are the group Jesus speaks about when he says that they lay heavy burdens on men's shoulders. The use of the word 'shoulders' is an allusion to this group as the word for shoulder in Hebrew is similiar to Shechem. The Samaritans were also known as Shomerim and Shechemites.
 

Another group were called the Nikpi who knocked their legs together and walk with small steps thus showing how 'humble' they were- this group were masters of 'fake humility'. They would also put off doing good deeds by elaborate cautiousness. A third group were the Kizai who would walk around with their eyes closed and smash into walls and draw blood in their efforts to avoid looking at women. A fourth group were the Medukhia or Hankaia Pharisees who are described like a pestle in a mortar. Like a pestle they oppressed, ground and smash down people by their exaggerated observances. Always looking for the faults in others rather than looking skyward to the heavens.
 

A fifth group were those self righteous pharisees who would think they were so good at observing all the Torah that they pompously would inquire about doing more. Two groups were associated with the matzah of Passover- they were the Essene followers of Menachem (the reverent mystics) and the followers of Hillel (the humble peace-loving Pharisees).
 

The J1 Shammai or Shamerim (observant ones) Pharisees were to influence Islam and Mohammed (of J1 P58 FGC12) was descended from the Shammai priests who in turn descended from the Samaritan High Priestly line who in their turn descended from the Ishmaelite priests descended from Kedar the son of Ishmael. The J1 P58 found among Jewish Samaritan cohenim belong to J1 P58 ZS223 which branched off at the time of the Jewish diaspora of 70 AD and are the so-called Cohen Model Haplogroup within J1.

The Judaisers in the early Church belonged to these Shammai Pharisees and the Shekhemite Pharisees. Paul spoke about the Shammai Pharisees in Galatians as the Ishmaelite sons of Hagar. Jesus spoke about the Shekhemite Pharisees by the use of a pun when he spoke of those who place heavy burdens on others shoulders (shekhem). The so-called CMH found among claimants to Jewish Cohen or Kohen status found among J1 and J2 is that of the Samaritan priestly line and not that of the Zadokite line of Jewish priests.
 

The surviving direct line from Aaron belongs to R1b L584. I would venture to say it is only this lineage that could provide a valid High Priest for a rebuilt Temple. They would need to have this dna signature and be recognized by tradition as a Kohen in their Jewish community who has no irregular marriages that invalidates their Kohen status. They descend from the Second Temple High Priests who were of the family of Annas. Annas or Ananius ben Seth descended from the Egyptian branch of the High Priests descended from the pre-Maccabean High Priest Onias IV. This is the true Zadok line of priests as opposed to the false Zadok priests descended from the Samaritan priest Zadok who converted to Judaism and was a founder of the Sadducees.
 

St John (Yochanan) the apostle (ha Shaliach) belonged to the Davidic lineage like his brother St James the Greater. St John the Beloved Disciple and Evangelist who was also called St John the Presbyter (ha Parnas) was a priest of the family of Annas. They have been confused in Christian tradition.
 

St John the Beloved Disciple was most likely a son of the High Priest Theophilus and is mentioned as a member of the High Priestly family in Acts 4 along with his brother or cousin Alexander. Alexander was the famous Talmudic Rabbi who taught: "He who possesses worldly wisdom and fears not the Lord, is as one who designs building a house and completes only the door, for as David wrote in Psalm 111, 'The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord." Matthias the 13th apostle that replaced Judas was a brother of St John the Beloved Disciple and he later served as High Priest of the Temple. 

Thus both St John and St Matthias belonged to R1b L584 y-dna. Hillel, Gamaliel and St Paul were all Benjaminites who were thus Q y-dna and Hillel Pharisees. St Luke was a Hellenist Jew and recent dna tests on his relics confirm him as G y-dna. Lazarus may also have been of G y-dna as tradition believes he was descended from a Syrian noble on his paternal line. G2a was the most likely haplogroup of Phillip of Macedon and his illegitimate son Ptolemy I of Egypt. 

Alexander the Great was E1b as the real son of Olympias by the Pharaoh Rameses VI (also known as Nectanebo II). The G2a Macedonians descend from the Macedon Royal Family. Did E1b1b enter the Samaritans through an illegitimate son of Alexander the Great and a Samaritan woman? As a result of this the Jewish Shekhemite E1b families may also be descendants of Alexander the Great. It would seem that Rameses III or his father was E1b1b (M215) and that the Samaritan son of Alexander the Great was E1b1b1 (M35.1). One of his sons was the ancestor of the later Shekhemite E1b1b1(L539) Samaritans and Jews, while another son was the ancestor of the Elb1b1b (Z827) Jews including the Kizia (Kuzia/ Kazia) Pharisees and the more fanatical Dead Sea Essenes.

Saturday, November 04, 2017

Sub-Saharan African at-dna in Jews and Anglo-Israel: A Hebrew Catholic Opinion


I was listening to a speaker who was quoting a genetic study from 2011 by Moorjani et al, that tested eight diverse Jewish population that found that they all have ancient sub-saharan ancestry of between 3-5 %. This speaker then assumed that all Israelites should have this percentage of sub-saharan ancestry in the at-dna. However it can be seen that Judah himself married a Canaanite woman. The Canaanites were of African ancestry descended from Ham. So it is the Tribe of Judah that has Canaanite African ancestry. 

The Jewish people descend on their direct male and female line from diverse haplogroups but no doubt most of them are descended from Judah and the core Judean population through some of their at-dna. However we would not expect to find this same sub-saharan percentage in those of the northern Tribes of Israel. However some sub-saharan dna ancestry has been found in the Gaelic populations. This is because the Gaels are of the Davidic House of Nathan from the Tribe of Judah (R1b L21). 

The speaker of the talks did admit that the Gaels may have some validity to Jewish ancestry due to dna tests demonstrating some sub-saharan dna and middle eastern origins. However he dismissed the Israelite ancestry of the Anglo-Saxons because they didn't demonstrate this sub-saharan ancestry. However the Anglo-Saxons do not descend from the southern House of Judah but from the northern tribes of Israel especially from Isaachar (R1b DF19 and DF100) who were the Saxons and Seubi and Zebulon (R1b U106 and L238) of which the Angles descended. Many of the Normans that came to Britain were of R1b U152 Reubenite ancestry whereas the Norman Ducal line was R1b L21. However the majority of the English people do not descend on their direct male line from the Anglo-Saxons but from Gaelic/Cymric R1b L21.


Jerusalem Berachot 5:1: Hebrew Catholic Talks


Sunday, October 29, 2017

Incarnational Circle, St Lawrence of Brindisi, Franciscans and the Jewish Fathers





I became a Catholic in 1987 from an Anglican and Orthodox Jewish background. At the time I was a Torah- observant orthodox Jew and I joined the Association of Hebrew Catholics. Before this in 1985 I had read Father Lev Gillet's "Communion in the Messiah" which inspired me to become more Torah observant and opened my mind to a more mystical approach to understanding the inter-reaction of Judaism and Christianity. I started reflecting on the Catholic Faith in the light of Jewish mysticism though reading and joining a study group in which the Chassidic ideas of the 6th Chabad Rebbe was being taught. Then when I was studying in the Philippines in 1993-1996 I started to research and write more on the mystical Jewish insights to the Catholic faith. I had also been inspired by a Hebrew Catholic book by Levi Khamour called "The Revelation of the Son of Man".

I now realise it is the concept of the "Incarnational Circle" which would explain some of my thought. This is also at the heart of the theological approach of St Lawrence of Brindisi a great Franciscan Doctor of the Church. I first learnt of St Lawrence of Brindisi and his writings in 2007 though my friend Jeff Ryan in St Louis Missouri when I was there staying at the Hebrew Catholic Center. I had begun to realise why I had always felt a great attraction to St Francis and the Franciscans. They followed an incarnational approach to theology. 

I realised in reading some of the Marian writings of St Lawrence that his Mariology was of a level with St Maximillian Kolbe a much latter and influential Franciscan. Some believe that St Lawrence of Brindisi was the greatest mariologist of all time. However I realise now that his Mariology is one very important part of his understanding of the Incarnational Circle. I loved how Scriptural were his writings. He used over 90,000 scriptural quotes in the writings that we still possess. St. Pope John XXIII in making him a Doctor of the Church in 1959 wrote: "Especially pleasing to us is the book "Explanations of Genesis", in which Lawrence, employing the doctrine of the Jewish masters, the Fathers of the Church, and that of the scholastics, examines the Divine Truth...". This use of the Jewish masters and commentators is unique so far in the writings of the Doctors of the Church. However one can see that the Scriptural, faith with reason and mystical Christ centred approach of St Bonaventure his Franciscan forerunner influenced St Lawrence.

The "Incarnational Circle" refers to the role of Jesus, Mary and Joseph in the primordial eternity or beginning. Before all things in the primordial world of Genesis 1 is the Incarnational Circle. All creation is linked to this Incarnational Circle and is subject to it. Thus St Lawrence also had a very developed Josephology as well as his extraordinary Mariological perspectives. St Lawrence taught that Joseph was predestined in the blueprint of Creation (Torah) in Eternity in the highest place after Jesus and Mary. Father Burkey calls him the Doctor of the Incarnation and wrote: "Lawrence has surely covered all the principle facets of  Josephology. Moreover his Christocentric conception of creation has given a new insight into Joseph's position in creation...".

Both St Bonaventure and St Lawrence are under utilized Doctors of the Church which have much to offer modern day theology and philosophy and its development of doctrine which is Christocentric and Scriptural. St Lawrence further adds to this with his use of the Jewish and Catholic Fathers of the Church as sources for taking us deeper into the texts of Scripture for greater insights that help to illuminate the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church. While many today are perceiving the Jesuit influences on Pope Francis I think it would be equally important to see the Franciscan influence and inspiration on his pontificate and teaching. Pope Francis is very Scriptural and Gospel focused with a strong Marian and Josephine devotion. I would propose that Pope John Paul II was more Carmelite, Pope Benedict was more Augustinian and Pope Francis is more Franciscan, in their approaches to the Catholic teaching and faith.

 

Monday, October 23, 2017

Friday, October 20, 2017

Moses as Amenemhet III, Exodus Date and Alternative Chronology: A Hebrew Catholic Interpretation


 There are many theories presented by different scholars and researchers on the dating of Moses, the Exodus and the Patriarchal history. It is pretty clear that there is no evidence for these events in the so-called New Kingdom of Egypt. Here is presented some of my reconstruction of the dates and events of Ancient History which owes much to Velikovsky but differs with him on certain points. I hold with Velikovsky that the Exodus occurred at the end of the European Ice Age and I also agree with those who hold that it occurred at the time of the Santorini or Thera explosion. However I date these events to around 1350 BC rather than 1500 BC or earlier as proposed by Velikovsky and some other scholars. The difference with my date to Velikovsky's date is partly due to my not accepting the 586/7 BC date for the destruction of the Temple but a 460 BC date. My date is closer to the traditional Jewish date for the destruction of the Temple of Solomon.

               Velikovsky's date of 1500 BC for the end of the Ice Age correlates with the end of the so-called Middle Kingdom of Egypt and the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Thus all the European cultures post Ice Age must have existed post 1500 BC rather than after 15,000 years ago as taught by many modern scholars. The date of the Exodus was around 1350 BC and thus the true end of the Ice Age in Europe and thus the cultures mentioned by archaeologists must be dated within this lower time scale. The Battle of Troy occurred around 690 BC and the destruction of the Jewish Temple of Solomon around 460 BC. The Habiru Milesians left Egypt during the reign of Ramses VI (Nectanebo II) around 330 BC in the time of Alexander the Great. The Godoli Milesians left Egypt and Libya under Bile's future wife Princess Tia at the end of the reign of Rameses X around 295 BC when Ptolemy I became the first Macedonian Pharoah of Egypt.
 

                 Amenemhet I (1560-1530 BC) was the first Pharaoh of the Dynasty that knew not Joseph. He was succeeded by his son Senusret I (reigned c.1530-1484 BC). His son Amenemhet II (reigned c.1484-1449 BC) succeeded him. In his reign Moses’ father Amram the Priest of An and Amon of Hebron entered Egypt. Amenemhet II was succeeded by his son-in law Senusret II (reigned c.1449-1429 BC). Moses' adopted mother was Princess Mereret Tamaat (Merris Tarmut) Neferu the daughter of Senusret II and his wife Queen Neferet daughter of Pharaoh Amenemhet II. Moses was born in 1430 BC in the reign of Senusret II. Moses' foster mother became Queen Mereret when her father died and her husband and half-brother Senusret III (reigned c. 1429-1388 BC) became Pharaoh. In Sensuret III's 16th year the 17 year old Moses was made the King's Son of Kush when he was successful in the Nubian (Kushite/ Ethiopian) campaign. Josephus tells us that Moses married the daughter of the Ethiopian King and it was due to this reason that later Miriam and Aaron criticised Moses about marrying a black Cushite woman. Sensuret praised this 'son' of his even though he is not his biological child. The Stela reads:
"Year 16, third month of winter: the king made his southern boundary at Heh. I have made my boundary further south than my fathers. I have added to what was bequeathed me. (...) As for any son (ie. successor) of mine who shall maintain this border which my Majesty has made, he is my son born to my Majesty. The true son is he who champions his father, who guards the border of his begetter. But he [who] abandons it, who fails to fight for it, he is not my son, he was not born to me. Now my majesty has had an image made of my majesty, at this border which my majesty has made, in order that you maintain it, in order that you fight for it."

             At 20 years of age in the the 19th Year of his adopted father Sensuret III he was made co-ruler with his adopted father as Amenemhet III when he was successful again in the Nubia (Ethiopian) campaign of that year. He left Egypt about 1390 and left his son by his Egyptian wife Hetepti (his adopted sister the daughter of Sobeknefru and her half-brother Sensuret III) with his adopted Mother.

             Moses’ son Amenemhet IV on the death of Sensuret III in 1388 became Pharaoh and Mereret became the Regent as Sobekneferu. Amenemhet IV removed to Thebes on his grandmother’s death and his descendants continued there until they once again ruled Egypt as the 17th and 18th Mosaic or Theban Dynasties. Many have in recent years realised that the Pharaoh of the Exodus must be from the 13th Dynasty as first proposed by Velikovsky. Some claim that Dudimose or Dudumose (Tutimaos/Thothmose) was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. In fact this was the name of Moses who was also as a general called Mer-meshoi and then as co-Pharaoh Amenemhet III. Neferhotep replaced Amemenhet IV and he was succeeded by his brother Sobekhotep IV. Most of the 13th Dynasty Pharaohs were contemporary with the 12th Dynasty and it is the 13th Dynasty Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV Khaneferre who is the Pharaoh of the Exodus. It is said that he married one of the Princesses descended from Senusret III. The Exodus occurred around 1350 BC. The Israelites entered the Promised Land around 1310 BC.

St Joseph Statue in Egyptian tomb

                Joseph the son of the Hebrew Patriarch is also known as Djoser Ateti and Netjerkhet in Egypt. Ateti can also be written Adedi or Teti or Dedi or Thoth or Tuti or Dodi. Thus Djoser Ateti is the same as Yosef haDodi – Joseph the Beloved. The word kawes or kaes is kalleh (bride) in Hebrew. This Bride refers to Joseph's wife Asenath or Osnat the Princess of Annu (On/ Heliopolis). The name Intkaes or Anatkawes means the Bride of Heaven (Nut) and the name Netjerkhet can mean the Divine Body or the divine Bridegroom (Khatan). The House of Akhety is thus the House of the Bridegroom. Asenut (also called Anath) means the beloved of the sky goddess Nut. This beloved of Nut is also called Isis. The As in Asenath is Isis. The Egyptians called Asenath Isis and the Ephraimite Phoenicians called her Anath. Isis is the Egyptian version of the promised Isha of Genesis 3:15 and her seed the Zera is associated with Sirius (zerius) which is Osirus in Egypt. 



           In Sumer the antediluvian Patriarch Henoch (or Enoch) is known as Anu or Anum and is also associated with the Zera (Seed) and the constellation of the Divine Man Sirius or Orion. His wife and daughter-in-law were both called Edna or Edni (Edinah or Dinah) and were seen as types of the promised Isha (Woman). The mother of Abraham was also called Edna. This term Edni or Etni meant a priestess-princess in ancient Sumer. Cain’s son Henoch is also called Enki in Sumer and is called Anubis in Egypt. The name Kaleb or Kawab means the soul (or likeness) of the heart and is also Geb (Gaweb/Galeb) the earth God of Egypt represented by the phallus. This is Yesod or Brit in the Jewish understanding of the Sefirot. The Egyptian Ennead of nine gods is a corruption of the the Jewish and Enochian understanding of the Attributes (Sefirot). Kaleb was a descendant of Phares Judah and he married the Ephraimite Hetepheres (Efrata) daughter of Khufu. He also married Miriam daughter of the Vizier Mered of Zerah Judah. Jewish tradition relates that King David was a descendant of this Caleb and Miriam. Their daughter Shoshana married Amram (Anbaram) of Levi.

               Further revision of the datings of the ancient world also need to be taken into account. The date usually given for the destruction of the First Temple of Solomon today in 586 BC whereas Jewish sources say 422-5 BC - in fact I believe it is around 460-5 BC. Solomon lived in the 9th century BC not the tenth. The First Temple was built around 870 BC. I believe the dating of the Exodus in the 13th dynasty, Solomon in the 18th dynasty and the time of the Babylonian Exile in the 19th dynasty by Velikovsky to be correct. However I believe Velikovsky's dates have to be revised down as he accepted the 586 BC dating of the Destruction of the the First Temple. I believe that originally Jewish authorities dated the Temple to around 460 BC but later adjusted it by 40 years so that the 490 years (of Daniel's Messianic prophecy) ended at the destruction of the Second Temple rather than the crucifixion of Jesus. Thus Rameses II lived in the 5th century BC.


 

              There is a great discrepancy between the traditional Jewish dates of historical events and the so-called 'Accepted Chronology' of modern academia. Brad Aranson defends the ideas of Dr Chaim S. Heifetz revision of Persian History in accord with traditional Jewish datings. Alexander Eterman seeks to criticise this reconstruction by Heifetz and Aranson and accepts the modern reconstruction of ancient history which is based ultimately on Egyptian Chronology. Eterman doesn't seem to know or doesn't mention the serious problems with Greek History and its chronological datings due to the acceptance of the Egyptian Chronology which creates a totally fictitious Greek Dark Ages.

          Velikovsky and those that have followed his approach have demonstrated that Egyptian Chronology is in need of major revision. Velikovsky did this quite successfully in many regards. However his acceptance of the modern dating for the fall of the first Jewish Temple around 586 BC and thus its faculty dating of the events of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel affects the time periods for Velikovsky's reconstruction of ancient history. The Jewish datings are mainly based on the Seder Olam and some other Jewish sources. They date the fall of the First Temple to 422 BC and the Second Temple to 68 AD. If we adjust a minor Jewish calendar problem we could adjust this by two years so that the 68 AD becomes the 70 AD of historians for the fall of the Second Temple. Thus the date for the fall of the First Temple would seem to be 420 BC.

          The Rabbis who compiled the Seder Olam took the prophecy of Daniel about 490 years from the destruction of the First Temple until the 'cutting off' of the Messiah as occurring at the destruction of the Second Temple. However the Jewish Christians saw this prophecy as terminating in 30 AD when the Messiah Jesus was crucified. The Seder Olam see the year 28 AD as the year that the Sanhedrin lost the power to give the death sentence. When we adjust this by 2 years we see that this happened in 30 AD. This would explain why the chief priests had to get the permission of Pontius Pilate for the crucifixion of Jesus which probably occurred in 31 AD.

           Thus the First Jewish Temple was not destroyed in 420 or 422 BC but in 460 BC (462 BC). How did the rabbis shorten the historical events? We know from Velikovsky that it was only the ancient history dates from the time of Alexander the Great that he considered 'secure'. The Jewish datings based on the Seder Olam says that Alexander conquered Persia in 312-311 BC but the historians tell us this event happened in 332-1 BC. Thus we see 20 years of the 40 that the Rabbis cut out from their dating system. The other 20 years was taken off the date for the rebuilding of the Temple Walls by Nehemiah thus the date of 334 (332) BC has to be adjusted to 372 BC for the rebuilding of the Walls by Nehemiah. Thus the gap between the modern dating and the adjusted Jewish date is 126 years at this point. Thus Israelite and Judeans history needs to be adjust by 126 years at least.

           The Seder Olam also tells us that the construction of the First Temple was begun by Solomon in 832 BC thus with the adjustments demonstrated here it would be the year 870 BC. The Bible tells us that Solomon began the construction of the temple in his 4th year so his reign would have begun around 874 BC. We know from Velikovsky that the famous Queen of Sheba was Queen Hatshepsut of Egypt. Thus the 18th Dynasty would be further lowered in date than even Velikovsky proposed. Velikovsky also identified Pharoah Necho II with Rameses II. Pharaoh Necho (Rameses II) (r.493 BC-431 BC), King Josiah (r. 519-488 BC) of Judah and Nebuchadnezzar (r. 488-445 BC) lived at the same time. Heifetz's redating of Persian history is helpful if we adjust it by 40 years. The Battle of Kadesh (Carchemesh) occurred in 488 BC.


 One alternative Egyptian Dynasty Timeline that is similar to mine

Two Dullesian Models of the Church: A Hebrew Catholic Opinion




Cardinal Avery Dulles in his writings proposed six models of the Church which ecclesiologists such as McBrien have also discussed in their writings especially in the light of the theological and pastoral developments in and after Vatican II.[1] The two models of Dulles I have chosen are the Church as Mystery or Sacrament and the Church as Echastological Community.

Vatican II taught that the Church is the Universal Sacrament of Salvation because she is the Mystical Body of the Messiah.[2] Lumen Gentium taught that the Church is "a sacrament or instrumental sign of intimate union with God, and of unity of the whole human race".[3] McBrien perceives that this new way of looking at the Church as a Sacrament is in opposition to the older pre-Vatican II focus on the institutional and structural aspects of the Church.[4] John Thornhill also writes of the importance of understanding the intrinsic link between the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ as the Universal Sacrament of Salvation rather than a judicial and administrative organisation.[5] Joseph A. Komonchak understands these models as an important aspect of the Catholicity of the Church connected with the terms “diversity in unity” and “fullness of unity”.[6]

Thornhill refers to Christ as the Primordial Sacrament.[7] In a sense the Church is the primordial Sacrament or Mystery which is beyond time as a sign and primordial concept. In the Eastern Church the term sacrament is mysterion (mystery) which broadens our understanding of the more judicial understanding of the term sacrament in the Western Church. However it is important we don’t confuse our terminology as the Church as sacrament is a sign with symbolic significances or iconic images and not a symbol that is a sign as proposed by some.[8] This is of course rooted in the Jewish understanding of the primordial concept of the Messiah and Israel as the Kneset Yisrael (Gathering or community of Israel) being before the foundation of the world in the mind of God and hidden in the Jewish mystical interpretation of Genesis 1.

At the other end of history is the Eschatological coming of the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in Heaven. Thus the Church seen as an eschatological community is one that is focused at the kingdom that is coming.[9]  Manoussakis states that the Eschaton is the Incarnation and that the Eschaton as Incarnation is present in the Eucharistic Mystery as taught by Hans Urs Von Balthasar who taught that “... The Incarnation is the eschaton and as such, is unsurpassable.”[10] Manoussakis while presenting some interesting insights has a limited understanding of the Mystery of the Incarnation which is not only the event in time but its concept and reality in Eternity. According to him Christian eschatology is found between two nodes- one the ‘already’ of the Incarnation and the ‘not-yet’ of the Parousia.[11] However the Eschaton is only present in the Eucharist and the Incarnation as promise and sign not completion or reality. An over emphasis on eschatology can miss the importance of the primordial. The Messiah is not just the the last or final Word of God but also the first word.[12] It is a Trinitarian nodal solution that is needed of - who was, who is and who will be. [13]

The model of the Church as Mystery or Sacrament may tend towards an almost Gnostic mysticism cut off from the roots of the earthly and practical if not balanced by the model of the Church as an Eschatological Community that is focused on working towards the Kingdom of God. However an overemphasis on a eschatological focus could lead to an almost Pellagian concept of achieving the kingdom purely through man’s own work rather than it being a divine endeavour of grace and faith manifesting in works that leads us to the Kingdom.

However limiting our concept of the Church to only one model or even two does not express fully what the Church’s identity and mission involves. Even using the six models proposed by Dulles does not give a full idea of the Church. I think an understanding of the Church is more effectively envisioned by a more Biblical, Jewish and iconic approach to understanding the Church. Rather than speaking of a model of the Church as Sacrament or Mystery or Eschaton etc we would speak of the Biblical verbal or literary icons that reveal the Church as mystery or sacrament or Eschaton etc.[14] [15] However these icons are only one face of the multi-faceted and multi-dimensional diamond or crystal palace that is the Church.[16]

Bibliography
Dulles, Avery. Models of Church, Expanded ed. New York: Image Books, 1974/ 1987.

Komkov, Oleg. "The Vertical Form: Iconological Dimension in 20th Century Russian Religious Aesthetics and Literary Criticism." Literature and Theology 20.1 (2006): 7-19.

Komonchak, Joseph A “Many Models, One Church”, Church Spring 1993.


Lepakhin, Valerii. "Basic Types of Correlation between Text and Icon, between Verbal and Visual Icons." Literature and Theology 20.1 (2006): 20-30.

Manoussakis, John Panteleimon. "The Anarchic Principle of Christian Eschatology in the Eucharistic Tradition of the Eastern Church." Harvard Theological Review 100.1 (2007): 29-46.

McBrien, Richard P. The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism. New York: HarperCollins, 2008.

Thornhill, John.  Sign and Promise: A Theology of the Church for a Changing World Australia: Harpers Collins, 1988).

Vatican II Council. Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. Accessed from, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Worgul, George W. From Magic to Metaphor: A Validation of Christian Sacraments USA, Paulist Press, 1980.




[1] Avery Dulles, Models of Church, Expanded ed. (New York: Image Books, 1974/ 1987), 197-210.
[2] Lumen Gentium 48
[3] Lumen Gentium 1
[4] Richard P McBrien, The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism. (New York: HarperCollins, 2008) 165.
[5] John Thornhill,  Sign and Promise: A Theology of the Church for a Changing World (Australia: Harpers Collins, 1988) 67-68.
[6] Joseph A Komonchak, “Many Models, One Church”, Church (Spring 1993), 201-204.
[7] Thornhill,  Sign and Promise: A Theology of the Church for a Changing World, 67-68.
[8] George A Worgul, From Magic to Metaphor: A Validation of Christian Sacraments (USA, Paulist Press, 1980), 123.
[9] McBrien, The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism, 180-181.
[10] John Panteleimon Manoussakis, “The Anarchic Principle of Christian Eschatology in the Eucharistic Tradition of the Eastern Church” (Harvard Theological Review 100.1 [2007]), 35.
[11] Manoussakis, “The Anarchic Principle of Christian Eschatology in the Eucharistic Tradition of the Eastern Church”, 34.
[12] Hebrews 1:2-3
[13] Apocalypse 1:4
[14] Valerii Lepakhin, "Basic Types of Correlation between Text and Icon, between Verbal and Visual Icons." Literature and Theology 20, no. 1 (2006): 20.
[15] Oleg Komkov, "The Vertical Form: Iconological Dimension in 20th Century Russian Religious Aesthetics and Literary Criticism." Literature and Theology 20, no. 1 (2006), 8-9.
[16] This idea I got from the Jewish understanding of the seventy faces of Torah as a mystical diamond or crystal and St Teresa’s concept of the spiritual life as Interior Castle and mystical diamond or crystal as well as from Rebbe Nachman of Breslov’s tale of the Crystal castle or palace on the mountain of gold where the lost princess is kept.