Skip to content

“Are ye not as the children of Cush unto Me, O children of Israel?

May 17, 2011

In the 1990s, a team of scientists (including the geneticist Michael Hammer, the nephrologist Karl Skorecki, and their colleagues in England) discovered the existence of a haplotype which they  termed the “Cohen modal haplotype” (abbreviated as CMH). Cohen is the  Hebrew word for “priest,” and designates descendants of Judean priests from two thousand years ago. Initial research indicated that while only about 3 percent of general Jews  have this haplotype, 45 percent of Ashkenazic Cohens have it, while 56 percent of Sephardic Cohens have it. David Goldstein, an evolutionary geneticist at Oxford University, said: “It looks like this chromosomal type was a constituent of the ancestral Hebrew population.” Some Jewish rabbis used the Cohen study to argue that all Cohens with the CMH had descended from Aaron, a High Priest who lived about 3500 years ago, as the Torah claimed. Shortly after, it was determined that 53 percent of the Buba clan of the Lemba people of southern Africa have the CMH, compared to 9 percent of non-Buba Lembas. Lemba males carry a higher concentration of this “Jewish” priestly DNA chromosome than the Eur opean and American Jewish population and therefore more “Jewish” than the European and American Jews. Although the Bhuba tribe has this CMH in higher percentages than the Ashkenazi priests, the non-Bhuba Lemba still has the highest percentage of this CMH outside of the priestly order of Cohanim. This means that the CMH is still higher than the Ashkenazim and Sephardim groups pooled together.

Concentration Gradients and Fick’s Laws of Diffusion

Fick’s first law relates the diffusive flux to the concentration, by postulating that the flux goes from regions of high concentration to  regions of low concentration, with a magnitude that is proportional to the concentration gradient (spatial derivative). Equations based on Fick’s law have been commonly used to model transport processes in population dynamics. It is also used to describe processes exhibiting diffusive-like behavior, for instance the ‘diffusion’ of alleles in a population in population genetics. Applying this to the distribution of the CMH, if there are two regions of genetic concentrations where one region (Lemba) has a greater concentration and distribution of the CMH than another region (Ashkenazi and Sephardi either separately or combined) it would stand to reason that that which is greater is the origin of that which is lesser and that the genetic flux of the greater moves toward the lesser.

This would mean for the purpose of the AIH that the Lemba CMH does not come from or originate from Israel or the Levant but rather the Jewish CMH originates from Africa. I will be presenting a number of different propositions that obtain with various African people groups claiming Jewish or Israelite origins (Africa out of Israel) that prove the very opposite, that Israel comes out of Africa.


From → Uncategorized

  1. Neyo Webster permalink

    Interesting article, Mr. Davis. I do have a problem with the validity these so-called ‘DNA tests’. The Jewish Gene theory is a false thesis. These U.S. research teams are led by Ashkenazi Jews themselves such as Hammer and Wilder. As you know they base their claims on the Cohen, the EU 19 and J1 gene supposedly being a ‘Jewish gene’. Aaron has been dead for 3,000 years. Where did they excavate that gene from? Interestingly enough, they own or control the very Labs these “studies” come out from. How can they say for a surety that what they are looking at are ‘Jewish genes’? In fact they have started to get major corporate sponsorship from other Askenazi Jews to promote this nonsense. Some of the major funders of this ‘science’ are Google owners Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and so on. What is also ironic is that these DNA propagandists have no Semite lab gene to compare their Cohen, EU 19 and J1 genes with! How can they claim descent from ancient Israel and not have a gene in the lab to compare it with? Thus, they are relegated to making gross assumptions. So they notice coincidences similar to Arabs of the region (Canaan) like illnesses they have similar to ‘Arabs’, and they forget that Asians/ Orientals have those similarities, as well. Additionally, they fabricate that they have a common gene with the Middle Eastern people. And that should suffice, right? I beg to differ! They spend millions of dollars to say they have a gene similar to Arabs and this makes them Jewish? Are the Arabs ‘Jewish’? But what they fail to note is that the ‘Arabs’, ‘Orientals’, ‘Bedouins’, and ‘Berbers’ are also mixed in their respective gene pools. The self-styled “Jews” traveled or came from all over Europe and mixed with the populaces of those countries, as well. We find the “Ashkenazi genes” popping up in non-Jews, ‘Arabs’, ‘Berbers’, and ‘Bedouins’, in the same areas where all their ‘testing’ is taking place. Why don’t they mention this in their testing to the public, at large? Why are just the ‘Israelis’ the main subjects? Why aren’t tests being conducted on the Palestinians on a larger scale? This is an element not mentioned in their research.

  2. Mr. Webster, I think you hit the proverbial nail on its head when you say, “The Jewish Gene theory is a false thesis.” You illustrate well how the epistemology of these DNA studies and the conclusions that are being made from them, is based entirely on a western or European cosmology. When imposed on African studies, it often results in what I call “cultural hijacking.” When the world got wind of these Lemba studies, certain “interests” went to South Africa to “convert” them to Ashkenazi Judaism! It gives the phrase “and all the world wondered after the beast” new meaning. Some might accuse my hypothesis as something that is motivated by anti-Semitism but I assure you and all readers it is not a case of anti-Semitism on my part, it is a case of anti-Kemetism on theirs.

  3. Neyo Webster permalink

    Mr. Davis, “anti-semitism” was a word coined by Jews to prevent criticism of Jews as revealed by a Mr. H.H. Beamish, in a New York address, given on the dates of October 30 – November 1, 1937. In this address Beamish states, “In 1848 the word ‘anti-Semitic’ was invented by the Jews to prevent the use of the word ‘Jew.’ The right word for them is ‘Jew’.” The term “anti-Semitism” when properly understood is a psychological weapon used by the Jewish power apparatus and their so-called “gentile” collaborators to silence any criticism or investigation into Jewish local and global activities. To me the word becomes pathetically void of meaning when one understands the historical origins of Eastern European Jews called Ashkenazim. A “cultural hijacking” has certainly taken place as you accurately state. From a political/religious vantage point, the hijacking took place at the Council of Nicea (circa 325 CE) where Arianism was promoted and Africanism subsequently was demoted. The conspiratorial underpinnings cannot be denied by the critical and unbiased thinker.

  4. The “historiography” of the Jewish people is the Hebrew Bible. I’ll not argue about the merits of either; that is, the historiography or the Hebrew bible. For the purposes of this discussion, it will do no violence to admit them into “evidence.” The “evidence” suggests that the “history” of the Jewish people is based on a biblical chronology that cannot be over 6,000 years old. According to the consensus of both secular and Jewish scholars and historians that follow or construct Bible chronologies, Abraham is said to have existed between 2000-1500 BCE. We will go so far as to give this perspective the benefit of the doubt by making it “a given” (assumed true from the beginning, with no need to prove it.)

    Bible chronology does not always comport with scientific chronological facts. We know this to be the case with archeological carbon dating of the Earth and fossil remains, but we also see similar discrepancies when it comes to chronologically dating the Lemba oral history with genetically dating the Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) that is said to be the originator or source of the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH).

    The following is from Journal of Genetic Genealogy, 5(2):217-256, 2009

    “(f) The so-called Cohen Modal Haplotype in Haplogroup J1 originated 9,000±1,400 years ago, if all related J1 haplotypes are considered. About 4,000±520 ybp it appeared in the proto-Jewish population, and 1,050±190 years ago (if to consider only CMH) or 1,400±260 years ago (if to consider only Jewish J1 population) split a “recent CMH” lineage.

    “(g) another so-called CMH, of Haplogroup J2, appeared in the Jewish population 1,375±300 years ago,

    “(h) The South African Lemba population of Haplogroup J has nothing to do with ancient Jewish patriarchs, since the haplogroup appears to have penetrated the Lemba population some 625±200 ybp, around the 14th century CE.” (p.218)

    “Obviously, to call the Lemba haplotypes the “Cohen haplotype” is a huge stretch in regard to the Cohen reference. They could have been Jewish and originated just a few centuries ago, or they could have been Arabic. Since the CMH on six markers is the modal haplotype for all of Haplogroup J1, automatically attributing a group of CMH haplotypes to the Cohanim is misleading. Hence, the so-called “Cohen Modal Haplotype” in the “Black Jews of Southern Africa” has nothing to do with an ancient history of either the Lemba or the Jewish people. It is a rather recent development.” (p.252)

    These findings are significant for two reasons. First, it questions the DNA evidence that is said to support an ancient Jewish origin for the Lemba. Second, it calls into question my own thesis that the Lemba themselves are possibly the African origin of the CMH based on the greater preponderance of CMH among the Lemba. If as the article states “so-called Cohen Modal Haplotype in Haplogroup J1 originated 9,000±1,400 years ago” such a date moves it totally outside the range of biblical chronology. If as the article scientifically demonstrates that the CMH among the Lemba is not earlier than 625±200 ybp,(years before present) putting it somewhere around the 14th century CE, then we have a serious chronological dating problem that impacts both Jewish and Lemba traditional historiographies.

  5. Neyo Webster permalink

    I am not even going to get into the historiography of the Bible nor its merits or perceived lack thereof. The Bible is a spiritual book that can only be discerned by the Most High’s Set-Apart Spirit. And it is there that I will leave it alone. Regarding the merits of carbon dating, you and I both know that carbon on fossilized objects make them appear older than they really are and carbon dating methods have a lot of holes in its ‘scientific’ applications to interpreting ‘facts’. I find DNA tests suspect because of the reasons indicated in an earlier response to you. I’d rather deal with the ‘scientific’ merits of history to validate my claims.

  6. Kevin Lopez permalink

    I think Flick’s law cannot be applied to this situation. According to Tudor Partiff, these people originated from a group of Yemenite Jews that crossed the Red Sea into Africa. Eventually, they married local African women. This causes a Founder Effect in which it just happens that the founder population from whom the Lemba descend had a high frequency of CHM. You can try this experiment yourself. Take the m&M’s out of the bag. You will notice that the sample would be too small to provide an accurate representation of the original pullulation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: