Fair enough - it is not exact science like I said because people in the region shared the same genetic markers, Hebrew or not. That said I'm Mizrahi - so I'm sure to have Arab markers on my end as well since my family comes from Iraq.
I think you have to conclude that the genetic evidence combined with the cultural traditions - that it didn't come from a mass conversion but in fact part of their origin.
There’s no single “Hebrew gene,” but there is a Cohen Haplotype, a Y-chromosome marker, and it's strongly linked to Jewish paternal lineages, especially Cohanim (Jewish priests). These are classes that are passed down paternally. It’s found in ~40-50% of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Cohens. Also Cohens are written to be descended from Aaron, Moses's brother.
Northeast (NE) Anatolia and the Levant have distinct genetic profiles due to their geographic and historical differences, but there’s also some overlap because of ancient migrations (J2).
Key Differences:
Caucasus and Steppe: NE Anatolia has more Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer and Steppe ancestry, while the Levant has stronger Natufian and Semitic-specific markers.
Y-Chromosome: J1 is more common in the Levant (especially in Arabs and Jews), while G2a and R1b are more prominent in NE Anatolia. J2 overlaps in both regions but with different subgroup.
Autosomal Profile: Levantines have a higher proportion of Natufian-like ancestry, while NE Anatolians lean toward Anatolian Neolithic and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer. For example, a modern Lebanese might show ~60% Levantine and ~30% Anatolian, while a NE Anatolian might show ~50% Anatolian, ~25% CHG, and ~15% Steppe.
The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses
Eran Elhaik
Abstract
The question of Jewish ancestry has been the subject of controversy for over two centuries and has yet to be resolved. The “Rhineland hypothesis” depicts Eastern European Jews as a “population isolate” that emerged from a small group of German Jews who migrated eastward and expanded rapidly. Alternatively, the “Khazarian hypothesis” suggests that Eastern European Jews descended from the Khazars, an amalgam of Turkic clans that settled the Caucasus in the early centuries CE and converted to Judaism in the 8th century. Mesopotamian and Greco–Roman Jews continuously reinforced the Judaized empire until the 13th century. Following the collapse of their empire, the Judeo–Khazars fled to Eastern Europe. The rise of European Jewry is therefore explained by the contribution of the Judeo–Khazars. Thus far, however, the Khazars’ contribution has been estimated only empirically, as the absence of genome-wide data from Caucasus populations precluded testing the Khazarian hypothesis. Recent sequencing of modern Caucasus populations prompted us to revisit the Khazarian hypothesis and compare it with the Rhineland hypothesis. We applied a wide range of population genetic analyses to compare these two hypotheses. Our findings support the Khazarian hypothesis and portray the European Jewish genome as a mosaic of Near Eastern-Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, thereby consolidating previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry. We further describe a major difference among Caucasus populations explained by the early presence of Judeans in the Southern and Central Caucasus. Our results have important implications for the demographic forces that shaped the genetic diversity in the Caucasus and for medical studies.
Conclusions
We compared two genetic models for European Jewish ancestry depicting a mixed Khazarian–European–Middle Eastern and sole Middle Eastern origins. Contemporary populations were used as surrogates to the ancient Khazars and Judeans, and their relatedness to European Jews was compared over a comprehensive set of genetic analyses. Our findings support the Khazarian hypothesis depicting a large Near Eastern–Caucasus ancestry along with Southern European, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European ancestries, in agreement with recent studies and oral and written traditions. We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaized Khazars, Greco–Roman Jews, Mesopotamian Jews, and Judeans and that their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan.
Large-scale genomic studies, such as Behar et al. (2013), and ancient DNA analyses, like the 2022 Erfurt study, consistently point to a Levantine origin with Southern European admixture, with no significant Caucasus contribution
No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews
Abstract
The origin and history of the Ashkenazi Jewish population have long been of great interest, and advances in high-throughput genetic analysis have recently provided a new approach for investigating these topics. We and others have argued on the basis of genome-wide data that the Ashkenazi Jewish population derives its ancestry from a combination of sources tracing to both Europe and the Middle East. It has been claimed, however, through a reanalysis of some of our data, that a large part of the ancestry of the Ashkenazi population originates with the Khazars, a Turkic-speaking group that lived to the north of the Caucasus region ~1,000 years ago. Because the Khazar population has left no obvious modern descendants that could enable a clear test for a contribution to Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, the Khazar hypothesis has been difficult to examine using genetics. Furthermore, because only limited genetic data have been available from the Caucasus region, and because these data have been concentrated in populations that are genetically close to populations from the Middle East, the attribution of any signal of Ashkenazi-Caucasus genetic similarity to Khazar ancestry rather than shared ancestral Middle Eastern ancestry has been problematic. Here, through integration of genotypes on newly collected samples with data from several of our past studies, we have assembled the largest data set available to date for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins. This data set contains genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 1,774 samples from 106 Jewish and non-Jewish populations that span the possible regions of potential Ashkenazi ancestry: Europe, the Middle East, and the region historically associated with the Khazar Khaganate. The data set includes 261 samples from 15 populations from the Caucasus region and the region directly to its north, samples that have not previously been included alongside Ashkenazi Jewish samples in genomic studies. Employing a variety of standard techniques for the analysis of population-genetic structure, we find that Ashkenazi Jews share the greatest genetic ancestry with other Jewish populations, and among non-Jewish populations, with groups from Europe and the Middle East. No particular similarity of Ashkenazi Jews with populations from the Caucasus is evident, particularly with the populations that most closely represent the Khazar region. Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region.
The conflict between Elhaik’s 2012 study, which supports the Khazar hypothesis for Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, and Behar et al.’s 2013 study, which supports a Middle Eastern and European origin, arises from differences in methodology, proxy populations, and data interpretation. Elhaik used a small dataset and Armenians/Georgians as Khazar proxies, employing a novel GPS tool to argue for significant Caucasus ancestry, but his study was criticized for flawed assumptions and selective interpretation. Elhaik’s sample size was small, and his analyses did not adequately control for shared ancestry between Caucasus and Middle Eastern populations.
Behar’s team used a larger and more diverse set of populations, including 261 samples from 13 Caucasus groups (e.g., Abkhazians, Chechens, Ossetians) and 1,774 samples across 106 global populations. They found no significant genetic affinity between Ashkenazi Jews and Caucasus populations, instead showing closer ties to Middle Eastern (e.g., Druze, Palestinians) and Southern European (e.g., Italians) groups. Behar’s broader sampling reduced the risk of misattributing shared ancestry to Khazars.
Behar’s team found that Ashkenazi Jews have significant Middle Eastern ancestry (50–80% on male lineages, per Y-chromosome studies) and European ancestry (up to 80% on female lineages, per mitochondrial DNA), with no distinct Caucasus contribution. They argued that any Caucasus-like signal in Ashkenazi Jews likely reflects ancient shared ancestry with Middle Eastern populations, not Khazar-specific admixture.
Behar’s findings align with the scientific consensus favoring the Rhineland hypothesis, while Elhaik’s study is considered an outlier due to methodological weaknesses and lack of reproducibility.
Who would have thought that a scientist will try to find evidence for a historical hypothesis like the Khazar origin, prioritizing speculative proxies and poor methodologies to support a preconceived result? And more surprisingly, why would you choose to overlook a more robust genetic study, selectively citing weaker findings to advance a narrative that contradicts the scientific consensus?
You can claim that advancing a narrative outweighs the pursuit of truth, but when you say, ‘I don’t care about the theory so much as the reality,’ yet cherry-pick speculative findings to fit your version of reality and gloss over the more compelling evidence I presented, doesn’t that mean you’ve lost anchor in truth itself?
Fair enough - it is not exact science like I said because people in the region shared the same genetic markers, Hebrew or not. That said I'm Mizrahi - so I'm sure to have Arab markers on my end as well since my family comes from Iraq.
I think you have to conclude that the genetic evidence combined with the cultural traditions - that it didn't come from a mass conversion but in fact part of their origin.
There’s no single “Hebrew gene,” but there is a Cohen Haplotype, a Y-chromosome marker, and it's strongly linked to Jewish paternal lineages, especially Cohanim (Jewish priests). These are classes that are passed down paternally. It’s found in ~40-50% of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Cohens. Also Cohens are written to be descended from Aaron, Moses's brother.
Are you sure it is not from...NE Anatolia?
Northeast (NE) Anatolia and the Levant have distinct genetic profiles due to their geographic and historical differences, but there’s also some overlap because of ancient migrations (J2).
Key Differences:
Caucasus and Steppe: NE Anatolia has more Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer and Steppe ancestry, while the Levant has stronger Natufian and Semitic-specific markers.
Y-Chromosome: J1 is more common in the Levant (especially in Arabs and Jews), while G2a and R1b are more prominent in NE Anatolia. J2 overlaps in both regions but with different subgroup.
Autosomal Profile: Levantines have a higher proportion of Natufian-like ancestry, while NE Anatolians lean toward Anatolian Neolithic and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer. For example, a modern Lebanese might show ~60% Levantine and ~30% Anatolian, while a NE Anatolian might show ~50% Anatolian, ~25% CHG, and ~15% Steppe.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3595026/
Genome Biol Evol 2012 Dec 14
The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses
Eran Elhaik
Abstract
The question of Jewish ancestry has been the subject of controversy for over two centuries and has yet to be resolved. The “Rhineland hypothesis” depicts Eastern European Jews as a “population isolate” that emerged from a small group of German Jews who migrated eastward and expanded rapidly. Alternatively, the “Khazarian hypothesis” suggests that Eastern European Jews descended from the Khazars, an amalgam of Turkic clans that settled the Caucasus in the early centuries CE and converted to Judaism in the 8th century. Mesopotamian and Greco–Roman Jews continuously reinforced the Judaized empire until the 13th century. Following the collapse of their empire, the Judeo–Khazars fled to Eastern Europe. The rise of European Jewry is therefore explained by the contribution of the Judeo–Khazars. Thus far, however, the Khazars’ contribution has been estimated only empirically, as the absence of genome-wide data from Caucasus populations precluded testing the Khazarian hypothesis. Recent sequencing of modern Caucasus populations prompted us to revisit the Khazarian hypothesis and compare it with the Rhineland hypothesis. We applied a wide range of population genetic analyses to compare these two hypotheses. Our findings support the Khazarian hypothesis and portray the European Jewish genome as a mosaic of Near Eastern-Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, thereby consolidating previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry. We further describe a major difference among Caucasus populations explained by the early presence of Judeans in the Southern and Central Caucasus. Our results have important implications for the demographic forces that shaped the genetic diversity in the Caucasus and for medical studies.
Conclusions
We compared two genetic models for European Jewish ancestry depicting a mixed Khazarian–European–Middle Eastern and sole Middle Eastern origins. Contemporary populations were used as surrogates to the ancient Khazars and Judeans, and their relatedness to European Jews was compared over a comprehensive set of genetic analyses. Our findings support the Khazarian hypothesis depicting a large Near Eastern–Caucasus ancestry along with Southern European, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European ancestries, in agreement with recent studies and oral and written traditions. We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaized Khazars, Greco–Roman Jews, Mesopotamian Jews, and Judeans and that their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan.
You can tell which one is a more reliable study:
Large-scale genomic studies, such as Behar et al. (2013), and ancient DNA analyses, like the 2022 Erfurt study, consistently point to a Levantine origin with Southern European admixture, with no significant Caucasus contribution
No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews
Abstract The origin and history of the Ashkenazi Jewish population have long been of great interest, and advances in high-throughput genetic analysis have recently provided a new approach for investigating these topics. We and others have argued on the basis of genome-wide data that the Ashkenazi Jewish population derives its ancestry from a combination of sources tracing to both Europe and the Middle East. It has been claimed, however, through a reanalysis of some of our data, that a large part of the ancestry of the Ashkenazi population originates with the Khazars, a Turkic-speaking group that lived to the north of the Caucasus region ~1,000 years ago. Because the Khazar population has left no obvious modern descendants that could enable a clear test for a contribution to Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, the Khazar hypothesis has been difficult to examine using genetics. Furthermore, because only limited genetic data have been available from the Caucasus region, and because these data have been concentrated in populations that are genetically close to populations from the Middle East, the attribution of any signal of Ashkenazi-Caucasus genetic similarity to Khazar ancestry rather than shared ancestral Middle Eastern ancestry has been problematic. Here, through integration of genotypes on newly collected samples with data from several of our past studies, we have assembled the largest data set available to date for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins. This data set contains genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 1,774 samples from 106 Jewish and non-Jewish populations that span the possible regions of potential Ashkenazi ancestry: Europe, the Middle East, and the region historically associated with the Khazar Khaganate. The data set includes 261 samples from 15 populations from the Caucasus region and the region directly to its north, samples that have not previously been included alongside Ashkenazi Jewish samples in genomic studies. Employing a variety of standard techniques for the analysis of population-genetic structure, we find that Ashkenazi Jews share the greatest genetic ancestry with other Jewish populations, and among non-Jewish populations, with groups from Europe and the Middle East. No particular similarity of Ashkenazi Jews with populations from the Caucasus is evident, particularly with the populations that most closely represent the Khazar region. Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region.
The conflict between Elhaik’s 2012 study, which supports the Khazar hypothesis for Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, and Behar et al.’s 2013 study, which supports a Middle Eastern and European origin, arises from differences in methodology, proxy populations, and data interpretation. Elhaik used a small dataset and Armenians/Georgians as Khazar proxies, employing a novel GPS tool to argue for significant Caucasus ancestry, but his study was criticized for flawed assumptions and selective interpretation. Elhaik’s sample size was small, and his analyses did not adequately control for shared ancestry between Caucasus and Middle Eastern populations.
Behar’s team used a larger and more diverse set of populations, including 261 samples from 13 Caucasus groups (e.g., Abkhazians, Chechens, Ossetians) and 1,774 samples across 106 global populations. They found no significant genetic affinity between Ashkenazi Jews and Caucasus populations, instead showing closer ties to Middle Eastern (e.g., Druze, Palestinians) and Southern European (e.g., Italians) groups. Behar’s broader sampling reduced the risk of misattributing shared ancestry to Khazars.
Behar’s team found that Ashkenazi Jews have significant Middle Eastern ancestry (50–80% on male lineages, per Y-chromosome studies) and European ancestry (up to 80% on female lineages, per mitochondrial DNA), with no distinct Caucasus contribution. They argued that any Caucasus-like signal in Ashkenazi Jews likely reflects ancient shared ancestry with Middle Eastern populations, not Khazar-specific admixture.
Behar’s findings align with the scientific consensus favoring the Rhineland hypothesis, while Elhaik’s study is considered an outlier due to methodological weaknesses and lack of reproducibility.
Who would have thought that a scientist will try to find evidence for a historical hypothesis like the Khazar origin, prioritizing speculative proxies and poor methodologies to support a preconceived result? And more surprisingly, why would you choose to overlook a more robust genetic study, selectively citing weaker findings to advance a narrative that contradicts the scientific consensus?
You can claim that advancing a narrative outweighs the pursuit of truth, but when you say, ‘I don’t care about the theory so much as the reality,’ yet cherry-pick speculative findings to fit your version of reality and gloss over the more compelling evidence I presented, doesn’t that mean you’ve lost anchor in truth itself?