Talk:Y-chromosomal Aaron/Archive 4

Who is this PinkAss/Phinchas - Zadok ?
True Arabisraelite jews(from Jacob/Israel) like all Arabs have J1 y-dna shared, J2 is for Goyim jews a.k.a false jews not related to Arab israelites tribesHaplogroup J1 is predominantly associated with Semitic people.

Biblical Semitic Aaron is then directly related to Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA), we do not care about goy PinkAss/Phinchas - Zadok ! who is he??!!

Arabs are the source of SEMETIC Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA). Arabs ( Arabs Muslims, Arab Jews, and Arab Christians) share one dominantHaplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) gene which make Arab jews to be Ethnically Arabs by Blood and jewish by Faith.So If you want to know who is the Israelites look at Arabs and Arab palestinians,and forget about PinkAss/Phinchas - Zadok

JesusThePalestinian (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Y-chromosomal_Aaron" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.119.130 (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all there is no such a thing as "true" or "Goyim" terms in genetics, or space here for this kind of words and discrimination. By using these terms, JesusThePalestine reveals the purpose of his inputs, comments, and vandalism actions. Please, read above the previous discussion with Anatole Klyosov. J1 CMH is now related to ABRAHAM ancestral, that is why thousands of Arabs as well as Jews are in J1. The black Lemba afro-tribe from Africa is also J1 CMH. Are the Lemba J1 CMH and Arabs J1 CMH descendant of Jewish Priests? J1 CMH is not exclusive for Jews, and not exclusive from Arabs, and has nothing to do with Cohanim Haplotype. J1 CMH dont have the coalescense to Aharon. Read above comments by Anatole Klyosov. This article is about Cohen DNA, not J1, ABRAHAM DNA, Arabs, Jews, Lembas. Regarding Pinchas, please, if you dont know who he was, at least respect him and his importance to Judaism and Jews. Only descendants of Pinchas- Zadok will be allowed to enter the third Mikdash.--MCohenNY (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Are the Lemba J1 CMH and Arabs J1 CMH descendant of Jewish Priests?

True Israelites and their Priests MUST be descendants of Arabs  y-dna J1.In this Dna age Jews shows to have multiple diverse and in equal % of different ROOTS genes of y-dna,J2, R1b1, K, I, e3b1..etc etc..which it is Impossible call them one single race let alone to come all from one single descendants of Jacob (whom is genetically must be an Arab J1-Y dna like his father Abraham who is also the father of Ishmael )..

That is why we call them GOYIM JEWS..Jews from other gentile Nations.

Plus Lemba are true Authentic Semitic Arab Jews.

The Lemba have oral traditions of being a migrant people with clues pointing to an origin in the Middle East. According to the oral history of the Lemba, their ancestors were Jews who left Judea about 2,500 years ago and settled in a place called Senna, later migrating further into East Africa.[4] According to the findings of British researcher Tudor Parfitt, the location of Sena was more than likely in Yemen, specifically, in the village of Sanāw within the easternmost portion of the Wadi Hadhramaut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba

This fact of their true semitic origin attested and verfied by SEMETIC Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.168.143 (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup J1, defined by the 267 marker is most frequent in the Arabian Peninsula Yemen(76%), Saudi (64%), Qatar (58%), and Dagestan (56%). Haplogroup J2 is found mainly in the Fertile Crescent. The SEMITIC you are talking about is on Fertile Crescent, thus, from J2, NOT J1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.114.34.111 (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Aegean-Anatolian origin Haplogroup J2(see Di Giacomo et al. 2004) is found mainly in  NON SEMETIC of northern Mediterranean and Turkish populations e.g Kurds 28.4% Turks 40% ,Georgians 33%,Iranians 24%,Armenians 21.3%-24%,Albanians 23.5%Greeks 22.8%, Yadavas 20.2% Uyghurs 19.5% and even Italians 19.3%. This confirm that J2 is European in origin rather than Middle Eastern – that complicates the interpretation of Jewish J2 results. Sub-clade JM102* originated in the southern part of the Balkans and is generally absent in Middle Eastern populations (Semino et al. 2004).

Therefore if Kurds Turks, Georgians Iranians Armenians  Albanians  Greeks   Yadavas   Uyghurs  and Italians  are Semitic  because they have J2, Then Arabs with J1  are indo Europeans.

But the question is this:- Could those Goyim Jews whom do not even share the same DNA between themselves, (i.e different paternal Ancestry  Y dna roots of   European  R1a1&R1b1, Armenian J2,  beta bread  Ethiopian Flasha A2,and Amaziq E3B1 y-dna),  be ALL descendants from Jacob (whom is genetically  must be an Arab J1-Y dna like his father Abraham who is also the father of Ishmael )?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.121.228 (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Abraham - Father of the Nations
Abraham means "father of many". Abraham entered into a promise: in replace for appreciation of YHWH as his G-d, Abraham will be blessed with countless progeny. Genesis states that the nation of Israel, (The Jewish population) descended from him only through his second son, Isaac. Abraham lived a long time after these events. After the death of Sarah, he took another wife, a concubine named Keturah and she bore Abraham other six sons, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Many Arab nations are said to have descended from him through Ishmael, and Muslims believe that the prophet Muhammad is his direct descendent. "No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations." The promise is not one of numbers only (Jews [J2] + Arabs [J1]), but one which will include all nations. There is a basic and solid aspect in this promise: one which concerns a blessing upon all nations in other words, Abraham`s progeny must includes, according to the G-od of Israel promise stated on Torah, plenty of other Haplogroups as well, not only J1 and J2. "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" --189.27.101.249 (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting way off topic - it's not supposed to be a dissertation on the Torah.--Parkwells (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Monsieur 189.27.101.249

If You do NOT believe in 6000 years old biblical estimated cosmos, then there is a small problem left, and the problem is that J1 is 8,000 to 24,000 years old, and J2 18,500 +/- 3,500  years old, their common ancestor  is J  25,000-30,000 years BP.

Since ONLY one type of Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup a human male posses, it is impossible then for biblical Abraham to have  j1, j2, let alone R1b1, R1a1, A, Q ..etc  all together on him. It is contradictory to bible also if you think or believe that biblical Abraham did exist 25,000-30,000 years ago.

According to your bible, EBER (עבר) the grand father of Abraham is also the father of Hadhramoites Arabs and Arabs tribes in South of Arabia Gen 10:26.Arabs and in particularly Arab Hadhramoites and Arabs tribes in South of Arabia genetically proven to be  Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA). Therefore all Israelites, Ishmaelites, Zimranites, Jokshanites, Medanites, Midianites, Ishbakites, and Shuahites are Arabs, all sharing the same Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) with Hadhramoites.

Also "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed"(Gen 22:18),This is SEED NOT SEEDS, ONE NOT MEANY. and that seed has to have Similar Y-DNA hapologroup as Abraham.

cheers and Regards

78.101.126.140 (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear sir or madam:

The biblical patriarch Abraham may have belonged to the Y dna J2 clan. J2 is the only haplogroup that is significantly present in all known Israelite populations, i.e. general Jewish, Samaritan, Beni Israel of India & Cohanim. The general Jewish population possesses approximately twice as many J2 as J1. J2 is the most common haplogroup subclade among the Bene Israel population of India. In contrast, J1 is absent among the Bene Israel of India. J2 is twice as common as J1 in the Samaritan population. The patriarch of the subclade J2* was born 3,600 ago.

Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.22.182.80 (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Goyi jew

If those with J2 (i.e. Kurds 28.4% Turks 40% ,Georgians 33%,Iranians 24%,Armenians 21.3%-24%,Albanians 23.5%Greeks 22.8%, Yadavas 20.2% Uyghurs 19.5% and even Italians 19.3%)  are "SEMITIC HEBREWS", then "ARABS" with J1 like me MUST be Indo-Europeans, since I or(we Arabs)genetically DO NOT SHARE any DNA heritage with them. We are genetically proven NOT to be related, and we Arabs are the cousins of ourselves.

78.101.38.203 (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear sir or madam

Haplogroup J2 is found in the highest concentrations in the Fertile Crescent, ie, they are the most pure SEMITIC haplogroup. J1 is generally frequent amongst Arab Bedouins (62%). Early Semitic peoples from such as the Arameans, Akkadians and Canaanites, built civilizations in Mesopotamia and the Levant; genetically, they often mixed. The names given to pure Semitic in these texts are in Aramaic, while others are the first attestations of Proto-Arabic dialects. In linguistics and ethnology, Semitic means: from the Biblical "Shem". Not Abraham. Semitic now is used to refer to a language family of largely Middle Eastern origin, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, Amharic, Arabic, Ge'ez, Maltese, Phoenician, Tigre and Tigrinya among others. The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern people originating in southwestern Asia, including Hebrews, Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Ethiopian Semites. Haplogroup J2 and J1 are all SEMITIC. But, after analyzing the DNA of J1 and J2, it was found that Haplogroup J2 has the coalescence to Aaron, brother of Moses. This article is about Y Chromossomal of Aaron, not anything else. This discussion is not valid for this article, thus, I am no longer making any comments. As I said, Haplogroup J1 and Haplogroup J2 are all SEMITIC, because the term SEMITIC is way before Abraham times. For Jews, the Haplogroup J2 is the one considered the most precisely found among ALL Jewish population, while the Haplogroup J1 is found mainly in Arabs. Therefore, Arabs with J1 should be proud of it, and Jews in J2 should also be very proud of it. This is it, no more comments. This article is about The Y Chromossomal of Aaron, and it is now very clear that the Cohanim signature in J2 is the one that has the precisely coalescence to Aharon. This is what DNA has revealed and there is no discussion over this finding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.47.157.101 (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

'''The Jewish “Cohen Modal Haplotype” of haplogroup J2 represents a rather compactgroup of haplotypes with a recent ancestor who lived in about 7th century AD. this “J2-CMH” is unlikely to be associated with actual Cohanim, and represents just a string of alleles accidentally including the 14-16-23-10-11-12 sequence.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.170.188 (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

After analyzing the DNA of J1 and J2, it was found that Aaron and his brother could be more closer to Haplogroup J1 Y-DNA Haplogroup rather J2, or  R.That is because Aaron and Moses were the two grand sons of  biblical patriarch Abraham, and  Arabs of the south from where Abraham's grand father EBER (עבר) had  come from have predominant J1 Y-DNA  rather than the Greek OR Anatolian J2,  then you are left with eirther to accept that your bible that you resort to is false, or that you are goyim jew not related to Jacob or  Abraham the Arabs.

cheers 78.100.230.6 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that is IMPOSSIBLE for J1 to be related as sons of Aaron. J1 DOES NOT have the coalescence time at all to Aharon. Genealogy DNA is all about mutations rates and coalescence times. No one can ignore the facts, the mutation, the rates, the coalescence time and calibration of the haplogroups simply because "I dont like". Dont take it personal dude, but DNA is just like that. It reveals the true, not imagination and own desires. One should be nuts to disagree with DNA. This is it, enough is enough. If you dont like the data and results of DNA, them there is nothing to do. Godbye and face the facts and DNA results. Dont fool yourself with your poor arguments. Take care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.47.157.101 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to say to you goyi jew that is IMPOSIBLE for Aaron to be Greek Anatolian with J2 rather than a true semitic J1.Plus J1 DOES IN FACT have the coalescence time at all to Aharon and beyond.Genealogy DNA is all about mutations rates and coalescence times. No one can ignore the facts, the mutation, the rates, the coalescence time and calibration of the haplogroups simply because "I dont like", and forget about goim jews whom their Y-DNA haplogroup are R1a1,R1b1, A, Q, etc. I feel sorry for you and for them for being FAKE or goyim Jews NOT biological related to Jacob the ARAB(Y J1 DNA).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.230.6 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

According to geneticists J1 arisen 8,000-10,000 years ago and contains the genetic signatures of the historical expansion of Semitic tribes in northern Africa. Haplogroup J1, defined by the 267 marker is most frequent in Yemen (76%), Saudi (64%) Qatar (58%). J1 is generally frequent amongst Negev Bedouins (62%). It is also very common among other Arabs such as those of the Levant, i.e. Palestinian Arabs (15.4%). As you can see, Palestinian Arabs represent only 15% out of J1. J1 has 8000-10,000 years of age, not with a coalescence with Aaron, not Abraham, no Jacob. In Jewish populations, J1 constitutes 30% of the Yemenite Jews. Haplogroup J1 may be found in as many as 20% of Egyptian males. J1 is Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa. There is no Jewish Connection on J1, that entered the Jewish pool until 5 thousand years ago. J1 is considerate SEMITIC because it derives from SHEM. Shem was one of the sons of Noah in the Bible. This is the case of what DNA has revealed: 5-6 thousand years. No one can contest that J1 is Semitic because it derives from SHEM. But regarding the Jewish DNA pool, J2 has the coalescence to ABRAHAM, and for Cohanim the precisely coalescence to Aaron. J2 patriarch born 3.600 years ago. In J2, Arabs as Palestinian, Arabs (Marroco) and others reach a high rate of 16%. J2 is the only haplogroup that has the coalescence to a Biblical figure called Abraham, and them Jacob, 12 tribes, Aaron. This is a fact, not a argument. J1 is only considerate SEMITIC but not the haplogroup that represent the JEWISH genetic pool. Jewish populations possess approximately twice as much J2 as they do J1. This is fact, not argument. No one can link J1 to Abraham, not Jacob, no Aharon. There is nothing you can do to change the reality of DNA. Godbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.175.247.175 (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs are (38.4%) of J1 Semino et al. 2004. PROVEN TESTABLE IRREFUTABLE FACT indicate that present day Arab tribes  of Hazarmauett/ Hazarmaveth and  Sheba now living in southern Arabian nations of Yemen and Oman like all Arab tribes are J1. This is Crucial since (if You want to resort to the bible) Abraham as well as : Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab according to the "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10-11 and 1 Chronicles 1 are all related to each other from a  common recent paternal lineages  Ancestor of Eber (עֵבֶר, Standard Hebrew ʿÉver, Tiberian Hebrew ʿĒḇer from where the word Hebrew come from).All these in Gen. 10:26-29, Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, Jobab and Abraham are CALLED HEBREWS from their grand Father Eber.

If all today biological descendants of tribes of  Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, Jobab  are proven to have dominance in J1 Haplogroup, then Abraham (and hence his eight sons including true Israelites and  Ishmaelite)  must  have J1 Haplogroup.

This Haplogroup Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) was originated from Arabian plate 8,000 to 24,000 years ago .Therefore majority Arabs be ( Arabs Muslims, Arab Jews, and Arab Christians) whom sharing J1 y-DNA ,are all coming from the same paternal lineages Ancestor (i.e. same Father) which make Arab Jews to be Ethnically Arabs by Blood and Jewish by Faith.

Jews have different paternal lineages Ancestry roots of Y dna ranging from  European  R1a1&R1b1, Armenian/kurdish/Anatolian/Greeks J2,Ethiopian Flasha A2,and Amaziq E3B1 y-dna).

The question is:-Could those Goyim Jews be called race and most of them do not even share the same DNA between themselves let alone be  descendants from Jacob (whom is genetically  must be an Arab J1-Y dna like his father Abraham who is also the father of Ishmael)?.

78.101.237.126 (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion about the Haplogroup of Abraham should not be take here. Again, according to the coalescence of the DNA, J1 is not linked to ABRAHAM that lived 4 thousand years ago. J2 does have the precisaly coalescence do ABRAHAM-AARON-PINCHAS-ZADOK. This is fact, and your poor arguments will not change it. There is nothing you can do to change the reality of the DNA. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.98.164 (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you resort to bible and we supposed that biblical Abraham and PinkAss/pinchas-Zadpok did exist,and based on the FACT that most if not all of contemporary present  Arab and Arab  tribes  of Hazarmauett/ Hazarmaveth and  Sheba (whom they biblically Gen. 10:26-29 been mentioned as  having a common shared Ancestry with Abraham from Eber עֵבֶר) are all found to be J1,then it is more possible for Abraham to be  J1 rather than any haplogroup.

The Question is what is your irrefutable TESTABLE scientific evidence at hand that ABRAHAM-AARON-PINK ASS/PINCHAS-ZADOK were J2 NOT J1? ,give us an Irrefutable measured/Testable prove?

78.101.227.238 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is useless. I am posting here the latest reagarding Cohen DNA.

The Cohen Modal Haplotype of haplogroups J1 and J2 (the Jewish and Arabic haplotypes) CMH, Haplogroup J1

The “Cohen Modal Haplotype” (CMH) was introduced (Thomas et al., 1998) ten years ago to designate the following 6-marker haplotype (in DYS 19-388-390-391-392-393 format): 14-16-23-10-11-12

Further research showed that this haplotype presents in both J1 and J2 haplogroups. In haplogroup J1 it splits into two principal lineages (Klyosov, 2008c), with base (ancestral) haplotypes: 12-23-14-10-13-15-11-16-12-13-11-30 and 12-23-14-10-13-17-11-16-11-13-11-31

which differ from each other by four mutations

In this section we consider the J1 “Cohen Modal Haplotype” in its extended format of the 25-, 37- and 67-marker haplotypes. Figure 12. The 25-marker haplogroup J1 haplotype tree for 49 presumably Jewish haplotypes. The haplotypes were collected in YSearch database (Klyosov, 2008c). A 25-marker haplotype three of 49 presumably Jewish J1 haplotypes is shown in Fig. 12. In this tree the both CMH branches are located on both sides at the top of the tree, the “recent CMH” (rCMH), more compact 17-haplotype branch on the right (between haplotypes 008 and 034), and the 9-haplotype “older CMH” (oCMH) branch on the left (between haplotypes 012 and 028). The base haplotype for the “recent CMH” is

12-23-14-10-13-15-11-16-12-13-11-30-17-8-9-11-11-26-14-21-27-12-14-16-17 and for the “older CMH”

12-23-14-10-13-17-11-16-11-13-11-31-18-8-9-11-11-25-14-20-25-12-14-16-17

There are 9 mutations between these two base haplotypes if to consider them in a roundup format, as shown above in bold. In fact, there are 7.2 mutations between them. This corresponds to about 4,650 years of a mutational difference between them (that is, a sum of the distances between them and THEIR common ancestor). We will use this figure later.

The rCMH branch contains 41 mutations, which gives only 0.0965±0.0015 mutations per marker on average and corresponds to 1,400±260 years to a common ancestor. The oCMH branch contains 36 mutations, which gives 0.160±0.027 mutations per marker on average and corresponds to 2,400±470 years to a common ancestor. From the data obtained we can calculate that THEIR common ancestor lived about 4,225±520 years bp. That is when a common ancestor of the “Cohen modal haplotype” lived among the future Jewish community of haplogroup J1, according to information stored in their 25-marker haplotypes.

“Cohen Modal Haplotypes” of Jewish and non-Jewish descent. In order to detail the above information, as many as 85 of 37-marker “Cohen Modal” haplotypes were collected from both Jewish and non-Jewish descendants, and 33 haplotypes among them contained as many as 67 markers. Fig. 13 shows a 37-marker haplotype tree, in which all haplotypes belong to the CMH series, that is all of them have the 14-16-23-10- 11-12 string in their haplotypes for DYS19-388-390-391-392-393. The left-hand side represents the “recent CMH”, the branch at the lower right represents the “older CMH” haplotypes

Figure 13. The 37-marker haplotype tree for the “Cohen Modal Haplotypes”, haplogroup J1. The 85 haplotype tree was composed of haplotypes collected in YSearch database (Klyosov, 2008c) and private “Cohen Haplotype” projects, and provided by Dr. Alberto Aburto.

The “older CMH” 22-haplotype branch contains 126 mutations in 25-marker format and 243 mutations in 37-marker format, which results in 3,575±480 and 3,525±420 years from a common ancestor, respectively, on average 3,525±450 years. The “recent CMH” branch corresponds to 975±135 and 1175±140 years to a common ancestor, respectively, on average 1,075±190 years bp. Maximum high resolution CMH haplotypes are shown on the 67-haplotype tree (Fig 14).

Figure 14. The 67-marker haplotype tree for the “Cohen Modal Haplotypes”, haplogroup J1. The 33 haplotype tree was composed of haplotypes collected from three sources: 1) YSearch database (Klyosov, 2008c), 2) private “Cohen Haplotype” projects, and 3) provided by Dr. Alberto Aburto.

The tree splits into two quite distinct branches: a recent one, the 17-haplotype branch, on the right and an older one, the 16-haplotype branch, on the left. Again, these are two principal “Cohen Modal Haplotype” branches, each one with its own common ancestor, who lived about 3,000 years apart. A common ancestor of the “older CMH”, calculated from 25-,and 37-marker haplotypes, lived 4,150±580 and 3,850±470 years bp, on average 4,000±520 years bp. A common ancestor of the “recent CMH”, also calculated from 25- and 37-marker haplotypes, lived 975±205 and 1,150±180 years to a common ancestor, respectively, on average 1,050±190 years bp, around the 9th to the11th century. This coincides with the Khazarian times; however, it would be a stretch to claim so.

The base (ancestral) 67-marker haplotype of the “older CMH” 16-haplotype branch (Fig. 14) is as follows:

12 23 14 10 13 17 11 16 11 13 11 30 17 8 9 11 11 25 14 20 26 12 14 16 17 11 10 22 22 15 14 18 18 32 35 12 10 11 8 15 16 8 11 10 8 11 9 12 21 22 18 10 12 12 15 8 12 25 21 13 12 11 14 12 12 12 11

The 17-haplotype “recent CMH” branch has the following 67-marker base haplotype:

12 23 14 10 13 15 11 16 12 13 11 30 17 8 9 11 11 26 14 21 27 12 14 16 17 11 10 22 22 15 14 20 18 31 35 13 10 11 8 15 16 8 11 10 8 11 9 12 21 22 17 10 12 12 15 8 12 24 21 13 12 12 14 12 12 12 11

According to data provided in databases, two-thirds of bearers of the “older CMH” (10 individuals of the 16) in the respective 67-marker branch denied Jewish heritage. They are descendants of people who lived in Italy, Cuba, Lebanon, Puerto-Rico, Spain, England, and France (Basque). That may explain why the “older CMH” haplotype differs in three alleles in the first 25 markers from the Jewish oCMH, shown earlier. On the contrary, 16 out of 17 haplotypes in the recent CMH branch claimed their Jewish heritage, and several claimed themselves to be descendants of Cohens. Their base haplotype is identical with the Jewish rCMH shown earlier. To verify this concept, three haplotypes of inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula with typical Arabic names, having the following 37-marker “CMH” haplotypes

12 23 14 10 14 17 11 16 12 12 11 29 17 8 9 11 11 25 14 20 26 12 14 16 17 10 10 22 22 14 15 18 17 33 36 12 10

12 23 14 10 12 16 11 16 11 13 11 29 17 8 9 10 11 25 14 19 30 13 13 13 16 11 9 19 20 16 13 16 17 33 36 12 10

12 23 14 10 12 16 11 16 11 13 11 29 21 8 9 11 11 26 14 20 26 12 14 15 16 10 10 20 22 14 14 17 18 32 34 13 9

were added to a set of haplotypes shown in Fig. 13. All three Arabic haplotypes joined the lower, predominantly non-Jewish branch on the right (Fig. 13). After the addition of the Arabic haplotypes, all 25 of 25-marker haplotypes in the branch contained 162 mutations, which gives 4,125±525 years to a common ancestor for a collection of 88 Jewish and non-Jewish haplotypes, all of them belonging to the “CMH” family of haplotypes. This time period is close to that of the legendary Biblical split into the Jewish and the Arabic lineages, whether it is applicable or not to the results of this study. The following section demonstrates that the “CMH” in fact appeared as long as 9,000 years bp or earlier on the Arabian Peninsula. The above time spans of about 4,000±520 or 4,125±525 (the “older CMH”), and 1,050±190 (the “recent CMH”) years bp was generated as a result of drifts of haplotype bearers from the Arabian Peninsula to the Middle East and further to the north. We can neither prove nor disprove as yet that the “recent CMH” appeared in the Khazar Khaganate between 9th and 11th centuries. At any rate, the bearer of the base “recent CMH” became a common ancestor to perhaps millions of present-day bearers of this lineage.

The Arabic “CMH”, the Arabian Peninsula

Obviously, the name “Cohen Modal Haplotype” was a misleading one. Though, by the end of the 1990’s it had certainly attracted attention to DNA genealogy. Even as a “modal” haplotype it is not exclusively associated with a Jewish population. A haplotype tree of Arabs from the Arabic Peninsula is shown in Fig. 15. The tree was composed from 19 of 37-marker haplotypes of haplogroup J1 listed in the “Arabian Peninsula YDNA Project” (2008). --MCohenNY (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * After discovering a new mutation and testing over 3,600 men, including 215 Kohanim, the latest results are becoming clearer (Hammer et al, 2009): no more talk about the CMH. Instead, talk about J1e* (J-P58*), present in 46% of Kohanim, 14% of "Israelites", 67% of Yemenis and 55% of Jordanians. Absent in Europeans and Far Easterners. In plain English, J1e* is Abraham's Y chromosome. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

J2 overemphasized in article
The latest paper on the subject Hammer et al, 2009 tested 215 Kohanim and found J1e* (J-P58*) in 46%. The second largest group was J2a* (J-M410*) at 14%, three times less numerous than J1e*. I think the discussion about J2 Kohanim should be shortened to reflect these numbers. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

J1 CHM will always exist. There are hundreds of Cohen with strong Cohanim tradition. J2 Cohens fits the Zadok Cohanim lineage. So there is nothing wrong. J1 CMH are Cohens. J2 Cohens are Cohanim from Zadok Tree. As simple as that... Regards for all of you. --MCohenNY (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A compact group
New comment moved to end. Astronaut (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

The Jewish “Cohen Modal Haplotype” of haplogroup J2 represents a rather compact group of haplotypes with a recent ancestor who lived in about 7th century AD. As it was indicated above, this “J2-CMH” is unlikely to be associated with actual Cohanim, and represents just a string of alleles accidentally including the 14-16-23-10- 11-12 sequence. Anatole A. Klyosov et al 2008c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.16.186 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2009

The CMH in J2 has nothing to do with Kohanim. There are no Cohens in J2 that has the CMH. Cohen, Katz, Kaplan, and others have the modal 12, 23, 15,10,14,17,11,12,13,12,29. This article is about Cohen DNA, and J2 Cohen does not have CMH. This info has nothing to do with J2 Cohens. --201.22.167.71 (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

KYOSOV 2009. NATURE

The cited paper is remarkable with respect to haplogroups and haplotypes typing and the large number of individuals tested, including Cohanim, which is the prime target of the study. However, it is open to critique regarding calculations of time spans to common ancestors of presented series of haplotypes. First, the authors have employed an inadequate methodology for the calculations, namely the infamous ‘‘pop ulation mutation rates’’ of 0.00069 mutation/marker/ generation. It should not have been used in the first place. More adequate procedures have been developed lately. Second, the authors have not defined criteria when the ‘‘population’’ and when the ‘‘pedigree’’, or the ‘‘genealogical’’ mutation rates, should be used. As a result, they have applied the ‘‘population’’ mutation rate to ‘‘genea logical’’ haplotype series, which increased their ‘‘TMRCA’’, i.e., a time span to common ancestors, by  about 300%. Third, they have not analyzed genealogical lineages with recent common ancestors (such as 500– years bp); therefore, they missed valuable information regarding history of Cohanim in this millennium.

The tree contains 16 base (ancestral) haplotypes (see the last section for definitions) on the top (in the entire order DYS 393, 390, 19, 391, 385a, 385b, 426, 388, 439, 389-1, 393, 389-2, 458, 459a, 459b, 455, 454, 447, 437, 448, 449 and 438): 12 23 14 10 13 15 11 16 12 13 11 30 – 17 8 9 11 11 26 14 21 26 10

All 98 haplotypes contain 191 mutations from the above base haplotype, which gives—employing the linear method 45 (see the last section of this paper)—191/98/0.047 = 41 46 generations (without corrections for back mutations; Klyosov 2009a, b) or 43 generations with the correction, to a common ancestor, i.e., 1,075 ± 130 ybp, the tenth century AD plus or minus a century. The authors of the cited paper have obtained 3,200 ± 1,100 years to a common ancestor for the Coha- nim, using the same haplotypes, albeit with a set of 17- marker haplotypes, and 3,000 ± 1,500 years to a common ancestor using a set of 9-marker haplotypes, and claimed that is it nicely fit to the Biblical description for the origin of the Jewish higher priest. It is not. See below for more details.

Since all 98 haplotypes contain 16 base (identical to each other) 22-marker haplotypes (see above), it gives— employing the logarithmic method (see the last section of this paper)—ln(98/16)/0.047 = 39 generations (without a correction) or 41 generations (with the correction), i.e., 1,025 ybp to a common ancestor for Cohanim J1e* haplotypes. Since the logarithmic and the ‘‘linear’’ methods give the same dating to the common ancestor, it means that there was indeed just one common ancestor for the whole series of 98- of 22-marker haplotypes (see the last section), who lived about 1,075 ± 130 ybp.

The authors of the cited paper have removed some markers for their analysis, namely five markers, DYS 385a, 385b, 459a, 459b and 458, reducing the series from 22- to 17-marker haplotypes. Let us consider if there would be any noticeable change. 98- of 17-marker haplotypes contain 140 mutations from the above base haplotype (less of the five markers), which gives 1,175 ± 160 ybp for the common ancestor. It is practically the same time span within the margin of error. As it was noticed above, the authors of the cited paper have obtained 3,200 ± 1,100 years to a common ancestor for the Cohanim, using the same set of 17-marker haplotypes, and claimed that is it nicely fit to the Biblical description for the origin of the Jewish higher priest. It is not, with 1,075 ± 130 and 1,175 ± 160 ybp. Why such a large difference? The answer is rather obvious. The ratio of 3,200 and 1,075 years is 3.0. The ratio of the ‘‘population’’ mutation rate (0.00069) to the actual ‘‘genealogical’’ one (0.00214) is 3.1. The authors of the cited paper have applied the ‘‘population’’ mutation rate to the ‘‘genealogical’’ series of haplotypes. Actually,that ‘‘population’’ mutation rate should have never been applied in the first place. It is ill defined, it is not governed by any criteria when it should be applied and when it should not.

In Table S4 of the cited paper, the authors listed 99- of 12-marker Cohanim J1e* (J-P58*) haplotypes. All of them contain 98 mutations from the above base haplotype (in the first 12 markers), which gives 1,175 ± 170 years to a common ancestor. It is the same figure obtained above, within the margin of error. Finally, the authors reduced the 22-marker haplotypes to 9-marker one (the 12-marker haplotype in the FTDNA for- mat less of DYS 385a, 385b and 426), and, using the same ‘‘population’’ mutation rate, have obtained 3,000 ± 1,500 years to a common ancestor of Cohanim J1e*. In fact, this whole series contain 67 mutations, which gives 67/98/0.018 = 38 generations (40 generations with a correction for back mutations), i.e., 1,000 ± 160 years to a common ancestor. This is again practically the same figure as given above for 22-marker (1,075 ± 130 ybp), 17-marker (1,175 ± 160 ybp), and 12-marker (1,175 ± 170 ybp) haplotypes, and is far away from the authors’ 3,000 ± 1,500 ybp for Cohanim J1e*.

In fact, the ancestral haplotype of Cohanim J1e* (in the format previously described) 12 23 14 10 13 15 11 16 12 13 11 30 – 17 8 9 11 11 26 14 21 26 10 was identified in Klyosov (2008a, 2009b) in the form of a 67-marker haplotype (the respective 22 markers are shown below for a comparison)

12 23 14 10 13 15 11 16 12 13 11 30 -- 17 8 9 11 11 26 14 21 27 10 (so-called ‘‘the recent extended CMH’’) of a common ancestor who lived 1,050 ± 190 ybp, around the tenth century. One can see, it is practically the same ancestral haplotype and the same time span to a common ancestor. Recent DNA genealogical branches of Cohanim J1e* The tree (Fig. 1) reveals three principal branches (on top and the left-hand side; on the right-hand side; and at the bottom), with their ancestral haplotypes, respectively: 12 23 14 10 13 15 11 16 12 13 11 30 – 17 8 9 11 11 26 14 21 26 10 12 23 14 10 13 15 11 16 12 13 11 30 – 17 8 9 11 11 26 14 21 27 10 12 23 14 10 13 15 11 16 11 13 11 30 – 17 8 9 11 11 26 14 21 26 10

each having only one mutation (in bold) from the upper base haplotype, common for the whole tree and for the top-left-hand side. Common ancestors for these all branches lived approximately in the range of 625–875 ybp. Just one example—the 27-haplotype branch on the right-hand side  has 8 base haplotypes as shown above, with the whole branch having 32 mutations from it. Therefore, a common ancestor of the branch lived ln(27/8)/0.047 = 26 generations bp, i.e., 650 ybp. The linear method gives 32/27/0.047 = 25 generations bp, i.e., 625 ± 130 ybp. The fit shows that the branch has one common ancestor indeed, and that he lived around the fourteenth century AD. Just one mutation per 22-marker haplotypes indicates that all the common ancestors lived within the current millennium, with THEIR common ancestor at the bottom of this time period. That the ‘‘young’’ branches are really young ones can be seen from Fig. 2, which shows a haplotype tree for 12- marker haplotypes of the Cohanim of haplogroup J1e*, listed in the cited paper. Since these haplotypes are lacking 10 markers after their first 12 ones, compared to those in Fig. 1, the tree is slightly rearranged in Fig. 2, following the computer program. However, it shows the main tree branches in the haplotype series. Since the branches lost many mutations (in markers 13 through 22), ‘‘ages’’ of their common ancestors are reduced for some branches. For example, the right-hand side branch now contains 48 haplotypes, 43 of which are identical to each other (base haplotypes), and the other contains only 7 mutations. This gives ln(48/43)/ 0.022 = 5.0 generations, i.e., 125 ± 50 years to a common ancestor, and 7/48/0.022 = 6.6 generations, i.e., ± 65 years to a common ancestor. Since the loga- rithmic and linear methods again give practically identical results, it points to a single (in terms of DNA genealogy) common ancestor for the whole branch. It also shows that 12-marker haplotypes contain much poorer information regarding a time span to a common ancestor compared to that of 22-marker haplotypes. Hence, it is surprising why the authors were reluctant to consider the 22-marker haplotypes of Cohanim, persistently reducing a number of markers in the haplotypes to 17, 12, and even 9.

Cohanim J2a-M410*

The 22-marker haplotype tree is shown in Fig. 3 One can see that the tree consists of two quite different branches; the older one in turn contains two sub-branches. It is clear that to treat the tree as a whole, without subdivision into branches, as it is done in the cited paper, would be incorrect and lead to a phantom common ancestor (though the authors in the paper actually indicated this may be a problem as not all SNPs downstream from M410 were considered). However, the authors did exactly that, they took the whole series of 31 haplotypes, applied the ‘‘population’’ mutation rate and obtained 5,900 ± 2,000 years to a common ancestor using 17-marker haplotypes, and 4,900 ± 1,900 years to a common ancestor using 9-marker ones. Again, they have eliminated markers DYS385a,b and DYS459a,b, as well as DYS449, and reduced the 22-marker haplotypes to 17-marker ones. It is obvious that the younger series of haplotypes and the respective recent common ancestor were lost from considerations in the cited paper.

Let us consider the younger branch, containing 20- of 22-marker haplotypes, having 14 mutations from the base haplotype (in the format described above): 12 23 15 10 14 17 11 16 12 14 11 30 – 15 8 9 11 11 25 15 21 31 9

It contains 11 base haplotypes, hence ln(20/11)/ 0.047 = 13 generations to a common ancestor. The linear method gives 14/20/0.047 = 15 ± 4 generations to a common ancestor, which is practically the same value obtained by the logarithmic method, within margin of error. Therefore, a common ancestor for the ‘‘recent’’ Cohanim branch lived 375 ± 110 ybp, around the seventeenth century AD. The older branch is split into two sub-branches. The first one contains five haplotypes of descendants of Cohanim of the former Russian Empire, namely Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Poland, with only 3 mutations per 110 markers from the base haplotype:

23 15 10 14 17 11 15 12 13 11 29 – 15 8 9 11 11 24 15 21 32 9

which gives 325 ± 190 years to their common ancestor, who lived around the seventeenth century. The alleles in bold are different from ones of the above base haplotype with a common ancestor of 375 ± 110 ybp. This places their common ancestor to about 1,500 ybp, around the sixth century AD. It is exactly the ancestral haplotype of Jewish J2 popu- lation identified in a 37-marker format (Klyosov 2008a) (the respected alleles are shown here for a comparison): 12 23 15 10 14 17 11 15 12 13 11 29 – 15 8 9 11 11 24 15 21 32 9 with a common ancestor who lived 850 ± 260 ybp (12 mutations in 148 markers). The older sub-branch is also split into two sub-branches, one includes descendants from Iran, Iraq, Argentina and 231 North Africa, with a common ancestor of 3,650 ± 830 ybp (24 mutations in four 22-marker haplotypes). The last two branches (Cohanim from the Russian Empire, on the one hand, and Iraq, Iran, Argentina and Africa, on the other) differ by 12 mutations per 22 markers that place their common ancestor to about 6,200 ybp. If, following the authors of the cited paper, to reduce the amount of markers from 22 to 17, then the ‘‘young’’ branch should contain 9 mutations, and a common ancestor lived 9/20/17/0.00184 = 14 generations ago, i.e., 350 ± 120 ybp. This is practically the same as 375 ± 110 ybp, determined using 22-marker haplotypes. The Russian Empire Cohanim (see above), whose common ancestor lived 325 ± 190 ybp (22-marker haplotypes), now fits the value of 325 ± 230 ybp (17-marker haplotypes, two mutations in 110 markers), i.e., just the same value. It is not clear why the authors of the cited paper reduced the haplotypes from 22-marker to 17-marker, 12-marker and 9- marker haplotypes. 22-marker ones worked perfectly.

The same was for the ancient branch. 24 mutations in four 22-marker haplotypes (3,650 ± 830 ybp) reduced to 16 mutations in four 17-marker haplotypes (3,575 ± 252 960 ybp), which is just the same, albeit with a larger margin of error. For 9-marker haplotypes, the ‘‘younger’’ branch of 20 haplotypes contains 9 mutations (625 ± 220 ybp) which for the 22-marker haplotypes it contains 14 mutations 2 (375 ± 110 ybp). These values are similar and fit within margin of error, and at any rate point at a recent common ancestor of Cohanim J2a. Finally, for ancient Cohanim J2a branches, 22- and 9- marker haplotypes give similar time spans to a common  ancestor: in the first case, 24 mutations in four haplotypes result in 3,650 ± 830 years to a common ancestor; in the 2 second case, the number of mutations reduced to 7, and gave 2,425 ± 1,200 years to a common ancestor. One can see that the two values are within the margin of error; however, 9-marker haplotypes give much larger error margin.

Cohanim J2e-M12 269 Fifteen of 22-marker haplotypes of Cohanim J2e-M12 are listed in Table S3 in the cited paper (the authors have reported in Table 1 that they have considered 16 haplotypes). According to the cited paper, a common ancestor of the haplotype lived 12,100 ± 4,400 ybp as determined with 22 marker haplotypes. The haplotype tree is shown in Fig. 4. The tree reveals two branches. The 8-haplotype branch on the right-hand side contains 15 mutations from the following base haplotype (in the format, explained above) 13 24 15 10 15 17 11 15 12 12 11 29 – 19 8 9 8 11 27 16 19 29 9 It gives 15/8/0.047 = 40 generations (not corrected for back mutations) or 42 generations (corrected), i.e., 1,050 ± 290 years to a common ancestor. The 7-haplotype branch on the left-hand side contains 37 mutations from the base haplotype 12 24 15 10 15 17 11 15 12 12 11 28 – 18 8 9 8 11 27 16 19 29 9

It gives 3,150 ± 600 years from a common ancestor of the branch. The two base haplotypes are separated by three

mutations, which places their common ancestor to about 2,950 ybp, which is the common ancestor of the left-hand branch itself. In other words, the right-hand side branch is a daughter branch of the left-hand side one, and a common ancestor of the whole tree of haplotypes of Cohanim J2b- M12 lived 3,150 ± 600 ybp. The authors of the cited paper, in which the time to a common ancestor was determined as 12,100 ± 4,400 ybp, were in error. They have treated the ‘‘father’’ and the ‘‘daughter’’ branches of the haplotype series as a just a set of haplotypes with a common ancestor outside of the branches, and, besides of it, employed an erroneous ‘‘population’’ mutation rate, as described above. Then, they have considered 17-marker haplotypes, omitting DYS 385a,b, DYS459a,b, and DYS449. These 15- of 17-marker haplotypes in fact contained 9 and 29 mutations in the right-hand side and the left-hand side branches, respectively, which result in 900 ± 310 and 3,725 ± 800 years to their common ancestors, respectively. These figures are essentially the same with those obtained with the 22-marker haplotypes, within the margins of error.

Finally, if to reduce haplotypes to 9-marker ones, which would greatly sacrifice accuracy of calculations, the respective time spans to their common ancestors would be 1,100 ± 460 and 1,500 ± 600 years to a common ancestor, respectively, for the right-hand and left-hand side branches. It just could not possibly be 5,500 ± 1,900 ybp, obtained in the cited paper with the 9-marker haplotypes. The main reason of the errors, again, is wrong methodology employed in the cited paper for calculations of time spans to common ancestors.

Conclusions Cohanim J1e*-P58* 322

A common ancestor of all 99 Cohanim lived 1,075 ± 130 ybp, and this timing is reproducible for 9-, 12-, 17-, 22- and 67-marker haplotypes. A much higher values of 3,190 ± 1,090 and 3,000 ± 1,500 ybp were obtained in the cited paper (Hammer et al. 2009) using incorrect methods and incorrect mutation rates. A common ancestor of all the 99 J1e* Cohanim lived around the tenth century AD. There are three main lineages derived from the common ancestor, with their common ancestors who lived approximately between 625 and 875 ybp.

An emphasis of the cited paper on the conclusion that ‘‘an extended CMH on the J1e*-P58* background that…is remarkably absent in non-Jews’’ and having ‘‘the estimated divergence time of this lineage… 3,190 ± 1,090 years’’ is incorrect regarding the divergence time. It is more understandable why the lineage originated only 1,075 ± 130 years ago is ‘‘remarkably absent in non-Jews’’.

Cohanim J2a-M410* Common ancestors of 31 Cohanim lived 325 ± 190 and 375 ± 110 ybp (recent different DNA lineages), and their  common ancestor lived around 1,500 ybp. A common ancestor of another branch of Cohanim of this haplogroup lived 3,560 ± 830 ybp, and yet another common ancestor lived about 6,200 ybp.

Cohanim J2b-M12 348 Common ancestors of 15 Cohanim lived 3,150 ± 600 and 1,050 ± 290 ybp, with the second lineage being descendant from the first common ancestor.

PLEASE, DO NOT KEEP INSERTING YOUR PET THEORY ON THE ARTICLE. --MCohenNY (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear user 86.26.16.186

You spend all day trying to add information on the article, whithout the approval of editors who have being working on this article for over 2 years.

You want to add:

"""""However and because of recent scientific discoveries published in 2008 that show J2-CMH’s Markers only pointing to a “younger age" of alleles's sequence[1]. It is then suggested that the “Cohen Modal Haplotype” associated with haplogroup J2 represents to a rather compact group of haplotypes with a recent ancestor who lived in about 7th century AD.With the supporting fact of the high observable frequency of Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) been found among non Semitic people of the middle east as well as Mediterranean people such as Greeks ,suggesting the non Semitic fact of the origin of the J2,this “J2-CMH” is thus unlikely to be associated with actual Kohanim""""

In 2008, Anatole Kyosov published the information above. That is correct. However you must understand that no one here is trying to promote J2 CMH as Kohanim. There are no Cohens in J2 with CMH. All Cohens in J2 does not have the CMH, therefore this subject is out of context. You are mixing old information from 2008. Anatole Klyosov, published just a month a go, the latest and final coalescense time for J1 Cohens and J2 Cohens. THis information is already on the first paragraph. Please, stop placing old information that has nothing to do with Cohens. CMH is only accepted in J1. CMH in J2 has no value because Cohens in J2 dont have CMH. Do not keep trying to add this information on the article. You are confusing the readers with this info that has no place here. --MCohenNY (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

MCohenNY

But you are not showing that in the main article !!

okay

I am sorry

Hi, thank for your input. You added this: (A common ancestor of J1e Cohanim lived 3.000±200 years ago). THAT IS NOT CORRECT. PLEASE READ ABOVE (and below).

Conclusion Cohanim J1e*-P58 A common ancestor of all 99 Cohanim lived 1,075 ± 130 ybp, and this timing is reproducible for 9-, 12-, 17-, 22- and 67-marker haplotypes. A much higher values of 3,190 ± 1,090 and 3,000 ± 1,500 ybp were obtained in the cited paper (Hammer et al. 2009) using incorrect methods and incorrect mutation rates. A common ancestor of all the 99 J1e* Cohanim lived around the tenth century AD. There are three main lineages derived from the common ancestor, with their common ancestors who lived approximately between 625 and 875 ybp. Anatole Klyosov (2009)

So, why are you insisting on adding false information? Can you point your references? Reliable sources? 3.000±200 years for J1? As the results confirmed: (A common ancestor of all 99 Cohanim lived 1,075 ± 130 ybp) Anatole Klyosov 2009 --MCohenNY (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

Chriscohen

Are you disputing the fact that the time of origin of J1e* is between 5,000 to 6,000 years ago?

Where is your evidences ? you are keeping saying things without even pointing to a single reference

I Know you are trying to falsely say that J1e has Nothing to do with Aaron.

J1 is traced back 6000 years ago ,J2 is Greek Anatolian, Abraham and Aaron has NO GREEK origin

No user, I am not saying that J1e is between 5,000 to 6,000 years. What the results showed is that, again, (A common ancestor of all 99 Cohanim lived 1,075 ± 130 ybp, and this timing is reproducible for 9-, 12-, 17-, 22- and 67-marker haplotypes). THIS IS THE INFORMATION THAT IS ON THE ARTICLE AND YOU KEEP REMOVING.

No one here is disqualifing J1 nor J2. We are just placing the results without any type of discrimination. J1 Cohen share the common ancestral in 1,075 ± 130 ybp. This is NOT 3.000 200 years. Where did you get that? And J2 Cohens (not J2 with CMH) share the same ancestral 3.000 200 years. This is the official results. Why dont you read the full ANATOLE KLYOSOV 2009 article above? Is that to much for you? CAN YOU READ THE FULL ARTICLE ABOVE? Regards

Chriscohen

This is what been said in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1e_(Y-DNA)

J1e is 5000 to 6000 years of origin ! Do NOT dare to change it, we can fetch it back.

You are confusing the article. This article is not about J1 or J2 Haplogroups. This article is about Cohen DNA and the results. If you continue on this practice you will be block from editing. And them what? --MCohenNY (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

I know it is about the Cohens DNA.

But Neither J1e 1,075 ± 130 ybp Nor Aaron is J2 greek

You do NOT provide evidence

I am pointing reliable sources from Nature (2009) Anatole Klyovov article. Read above? The article is not making assumptions. You cannot continue with this kind of behavior. You must seek for approval and consensu here with the editors prior to delete and add information on the article. This is the policy and you seem not to understand. You edits will be reverted until you be block from editing. You also dont agree with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1e_(Y-DNA). Please, visit that article talk page to discuss. You cannot simply appear and start deleting and editing the article without the consensu. --MCohenNY (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Chriscohen

You said pointing The source from Nature !!! ????

I am surprise, what you have forwarded yourself ,as prove is a self acknowledged source,I am not interested in childish SOURCES.I CAN   GIVE YOU MILLION AND ONE OTHER SOURCES TO CHALLENGE YOURS. The question is What make your sources more reliable than mine ? where is your DARN PROOF AND FACTS?

Most reliable sources, proved and indicate that most J2 haplotypes have no association with CMH’s Markers. The only “J2 Kohanim”( with exception of 14%) whom found to be associated with Cohen Modal Haplotype do all have CMH’s Markers that only pointing to a “younger age" of alleles' sequence. This indicates that most of J2 Kohanim with CMH are descends from a rather compact group of a recent ancestor who lived in about 7th century AD.

Plus and unlike Semitic dominant J1e, it also very crucially to statethat Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) is more frequently been found among non Semitic people of the middle east as well as Mediterranean people such as Greeks which point out to its non Semitic origin. “J2-CMH” is thus unlikely to be associated with actual Kohanim. Three of these sources. 1.	The Actual Works of Anatole A. Klyosov et al 2008c  see http://www.worldacademy.org/files/DNA_genealogy_Part_1.pdf and http://www.worldacademy.org/files/DNA_Genealogy_Part_2.pdf

2.      The Actual  Works of Hammer et al, 2009. see  http://www.springerlink.com/content/357176p177623m41/fulltext.pdf

3.    Wikipedia  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1e_(Y-DNA).

I can Provide More if you want.

Please refrain from referring to a content dispute as "vandalism". You obviously misunderstand the difference between vandalism (causing damage for entertainment) and a content dispute (disagreement between two users on the way an issue should be presented).

Chrischoen seems to be in a state of self denial and wants to have a full “ dictatorship monopoly on this topic “, avoiding healthy discussions ,excommunicate,character assassinate,and block any one whom scientifically refuting his fairy tales. He believes that ONLY his fairy tale story of " Phinchas - Zadok  " has to be  forced and imposed on all of us as undisputable FACT.

This kind of behaviour must not be accepted. This has to be stopped.

cheers and regards

86.26.16.186 (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi user 86.26.16.186. Thank you very much for your comments here on the discussion page. Please, note that your IP 86.26.16.186, is registered to NTL Infrastructure - Oxford, an Internet service provider throughout which numerous individual users can connect to the Internet via proxy. If you desire to really contribute in Wikipedia, you should create an account for yourself. Please, do it, so we can take in deliberation your posts, since we experienced so many hard times before dealing with this type of contribution from unregister users.

Now, I am glad that you posted here your comments prior to start deleting and adding unconstructive posts on the article, as you did before (and only for that I called vandalism). Now we have this opportunity to discuss DNA. I finally understand what is in your mind.

The best thing is to go step by step with you…

Please, note that I am not against you, in any circumstance. But the infos you tried to add and delete on the article is not accurate. In 1997, Dr Skorecki found the CMH in J1 Cohens. We are now in 2009. So, 12 years have passed, until we finally have the final results for Cohens in J1 and in J2. The markers called CMH is only found in Cohens J1.

As you said correctly:

“Most reliable sources, proved and indicate that most J2 haplotypes have no association with CMH’s Markers”

That is TRUE. The CMH markers are not applied to J2 Cohens, because J2 Cohens have a dissimilar signature comparing to J1 CMH. CMH has no value in J2 Cohens, because J2 Kohanim DON’T  share this signature called CMH. CMH is only compelling and useful for J1.

User, please read the current full article Y-Chromossome on Wikipedia. It is well said on the current article that CMH has no assessment for J2 Cohens.

From the current article:

''Note, some lineages of subgroup J2 also, coincidentally, developed a similar set of genetic markers corresponding to the Cohen Modal Haplotype. Low frequencies of individuals with these lineages even exist among Jewish Kohanim, albeit they do not descend from Y-Aaron.''

The J2 Cohens do not match the 12-marker J1-extended CMH.

User, please avoid trying to insert the same information on the article again. It is not needed because it is well explained on the article. Again, J2 Cohens do not match the CMH, albeit J2 with CMH do not descend from Y-Aaron. (This is already on the article). Please, don’t puzzle the article, ok? What else do you want?

Moving on…

You tried to plant another info on the article:

This indicates that most of J2 Kohanim with CMH are descends from a rather compact group of a recent ancestor who lived in about 7th century AD.

User, again, J2 with ‘CMH’ is not related to Cohen. J2 Kohanim does not have CMH as you pointed above. This category of J2 is not Kohanim, and must not be bring up, again, on the article. All J2 that has CMH avoid any Cohen tradition. Please, note and read the article again. The current article also contains this information below:

using the current CMH definition to a infer relation of individuals or groups to the Cohen or ancient Hebrew populations would produce many false-positive results

So,why you persist on this claim? Please understand, that CMH is very well explained on the article, and the pieces of information that you tried to add on the article, is already there, besides all the puzzlement and postulation that you are trying to make out of it.

User, again, moving back to your informations (below), from another info that you tried to add on the current article.

Plus and unlike Semitic dominant J1e, it also very crucially to state that Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) is more frequently been found among non Semitic people of the middle east as well as Mediterranean people such as Greeks which point out to its non Semitic origin. “J2-CMH” is thus unlikely to be associated with actual Kohanim.

??

What are you trying to say? (.. it also very crucially to state that Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) is more frequently been found among non Semitic people….) ?

Now, you are moving to another direction? This article is not about haplogroups, nor J1 or J2. You are making wrong assumption, claims, and really, this article is not the place for that.

Again, J2-CMH has no value in J2, again, because J2 Cohens does not have CMH, as the article said, and I am saying again for the fourth time. Please, do not try to make confusion on the article.

Now, finally moving to the latest research articles.

As I took time, I posted above, the latest full article from Anatole Klyosov (2009 – Nature) called: A comment on the Paper: Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Pristhood.

If you want to read for yourself, on the original PDF file, accepted by Nature on 24 August 2009. Please take time to read it and feel free to download it here:

http://www.cohen.org.br/springer/nature/2009/Klyosov_Hum_Genet.pdf

Now, I will post here the conclusions, again from the article:

Conclusions

Cohanim J1e*-P58* A common ancestor of all 99 Cohanim lived 1,075 ± 130 ybp, and this timing is reproducible for 9-, 12-, 17-, 22- and 67-marker haplotypes. A much higher values of 3,190 ± 1,090 and 3,000 ± 1,500 ybp were obtained in the cited paper (Hammer et al. 2009) using incorrect methods and incorrect mutation rates. A common ancestor of all the 99 J1e* Cohanim lived around the tenth century AD. There are three main lineages derived from the common ancestor, with their common ancestors who lived approximately between 625 and 875 ybp. (User, this group called J1 Cohanim is the compact group that you tried to place under J2CMH. That is not accurate. Again J2-CMH are not Cohen. The compact group you called is the one above. More below from the article conclusion….

An emphasis of the cited paper on the conclusion that ‘‘an extended CMH on the J1e*-P58* background that…is remarkably absent in non-Jews’’ and having ‘‘the estimated divergence time of this lineage… 3,190 ± 1,090 years’’ is incorrect regarding the divergence time. It is more understandable why the lineage originated only 1,075 ± 130 years ago is ‘‘remarkably absent in non-Jews’’.

Again - ‘’There are three main lineages derived from the common ancestor (J1 CMH), with their common ancestors who lived approximately between 625 and 875 ybp’’

User, this is the compact group that you called before, but not J2 Cohanim. (that has no CMH at all) – SEE WE ARE NOT DISCRIMINATING J1 OR J2, so the current article is not proclaiming anyone, but saying that both are lineages of Cohanim.

More conclusion from the article:

Cohanim J2a-M410*

Common ancestors of 31 Cohanim lived 325 ± 190 and 375 ± 110 ybp (recent different DNA lineages), and their  common ancestor lived around 1,500 ybp. A common ancestor of another branch of Cohanim of this haplogroup lived 3,560 ± 830 ybp. (User, put on your mind this. For J2 Cohens the results showed that 3500+/-800 years (J2) is, of course, good and related for Pinchas. All J1 data, provided by Hammer, are not good for Pinchas. They, all 99 haplotypes of J1, are VERY recent (common ancestors who lived approximately between 625 and 875 ybp).

Please, do not bewilder to yourself or try to confuse the readers with your posts.

Finally, the article is not making discrimination. The article does recognize both J1 and J2 as lineages of Cohanim. What else do you need?

From the article:

Thus, J1 CMH is one lineage of Cohanim, and J2 Cohens another lineage of Cohanim. Now, you cannot revolutionize the results. J2 are related to the Zadok house, and J1 Cohens to another house of Cohanim.(there are so many houses of Cohanim). What is wrong with that? Do you want to modify this? Do you want to turn upside down the results? What is really going on with you? Please, face the reality of DNA results. There is nothing that you or me can do to change it.

The current article is not making any type of unfairness but saying that there are two lineages of Cohaim, one in J1-CHM and another on J2. Best Regards --MCohenNY (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

HI Chriscohen 

This statement of representation of source contradicts itself. Just look at it,  “UNCORRECTED PROOF”

http://www.cohen.org.br/springer/nature/2009/Klyosov_Hum_Genet.pdf

Take your contradictory UNCORRECTED PROOF and slap yourself with it,if you could not see how this statement contradict itself. I have no confidence that you be able to understand the complex and intrigued true essence of genetics. It is very strange that a crucial and important subject such as genetics is actually been studied, lead and monopolize by group of buffoons.

I am not sure if you can help me out with the following question. I have been unsuccessfully with wrestling myself as to which is the funnier statement, verifiable descent from " PinkAss" or placing  confidence in  an  UNCORRECTED PROOF ?

I hope you understand what I mean, and you can help me to resolve this dilemma.

Cheers and Regards.

86.26.16.186 (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User, thank you for your replay. You misinterpreted and misunderstood. This UNCORRECTED PROOF version just shows that the author article approved the little changes (in blue color) or the mispelling errors on the article. That file is the final prove sent from Anatole to Springer and to myself. Now, I am sorry but to teach you that Cohanim comes from distinct lineages (one is Pinchas who around lived 3.2 thousand years ago) is very hard, because for that you must study Judaism, Tora, Talmud, Midrash. Please, since 2007, two years ago, Dr. Skorecki (the one that found the CMH in 1997) announced to public on the Kohanim Conference in Jerusalem, that J2 Cohens have the coalescence to Pinchas, the zealot mentioned in the Bible. Please, if you want, you can read it here: http://israelplug.com/art-and-culture/jewish-priests-geneology-and-roles/ There is nothing wrong with that. J1 Cohens are very traditionals, and no one can change that. Both J1 Cohanim and J2 Cohanim have values and importance. Regards! --MCohenNY (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi user, please dont use again this term '" PinkAss" to relate to Pinchas, the zealot mentioned on the Bible. Dr Karl Skorecki was the one that first announce Pinchas, and no one dared to call hi that way. You should respect the name of Pinchas, because he must be honored not discourteous and ill-mannered. --MCohenNY (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Regards.

HI Chriscohen 

If Phinchas was an Israelite descends of the Semitic Jacob, then he  is MORE likely to be  Y-J1, and less likely be J2, but he could have also been G, or E1b1b too, since those two  haplougroups are common and in high frequency in Levant. He could even have been R1a1 which is thousands of years old in Levant too.

What make You and Karl Skorecki so sure that Phinchas(if exist) was in fact a J2 Not J1(most common among Semitics)? Have you reconstituted Phinchas's body,and took his y-dna? or did you have space time travel machine to see him,or is it just nothing but a form of speculation and conjecture,nothing more?

Once again I really hope that you would not find my comments as being too blunt, and instead take them for what they truly are. That is a clarification of irrefutable scientific solid “ Facts”, that can be measured and validated, not providing us piece of works that based on speculations and conjectures and imposed them on all of us as undisputable facts. Without serious and sincere introspection (or actuall scientific searching) to establish the actual validity/veracity in relation to all the testable facts at hand (rather than a vain sensations/feelings), you will face the real danger of fatally wasting your  emotional/physical investments in “falsehood”.

Regards

86.26.16.186 (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi user. I am not taking this discussion any futher. If you do not agree with coalescence, mutation rates of SNPs, or with the articles, results and annoucments made by Dr Karl Skorecki at all, Klyosov, and so many others professionals in the field, than there is nothing I can do about it. Again, this article is not about haplogroups, but about Y-Chromossome Aaron. If you need to reconstituted Phinchas's body to bealive in DNA coalesense ,than you also should not believe in Aaron, and in his Y-Chromossome, witch is the main topic of the article. The current article is not proclaiming anyone as true or false Cohanim, but saying the article recognizes both lineages of Cohanim, in J1 and J2. Best Regards. I am not taking this discussion any futher. --MCohenNY (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi to Chriscohen and to User 86.26.16.186|86.26.16.186.

Chriscohen ! if you consider {this article is not about haplogroups, but about Y-Chromossome Aaron}, then why Phinchas in the picture, it is about Aaron?

Plus there are millions and one geneticists whom scientifically providing bunch of evidences that each REFUTE or can kill and burry  Dr Karl Skorecki's initial hypothetical claim on so called  6/6  Cohen's markers.

Why are you taking it too personally when irrefutable scientific evidences show you that any J2 Jew is in fact a GOY JEW( NOT an Israelite)more closely related to non Semitics  middleeastren people (like Kurds, Turks, Armenians, even Greeks)than Semitic Arabs J1?

89.211.50.131 (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tone
Talk pages are for the discussion of the improvement of the main page. Please refrain from racist lingo an ad-hominim attacks, these actions can get one blocked or banned from Wikipedia. Talk pages are not a discussion group or forum, please use personal pages for activities not related to page improvements. - With regard to the article there are now 2 recent papers criticizing the coheni argument about the Aaron. There is little evidence of a Y chromosomal Aaron, the closest that appears is haplotype E1b1b1c and it is relatively certain this is a Egyptian or Arabic haplogroup. User:86.26.16.186 consider this your final warning.

Hi Tone

Could you please shows us those 2 recent papers criticizing the coheni argument about the Aaron?

Cheers.

Stop vandalizing and/or deleting the information on the J2 Cohen haplogroup.

 * It is a matter of fact that the Cohens are divided into both J1 and J2 principal haplogroups. Perhaps this fact is inconvenient for those who need to believe that the "real" Cohens are J1, and everyone else is a fake. The J2 Cohens have their own distinct clade (J2a4) with a common ancestry 3000 years ago, as opposed to 1075 years for the J1 Cohanim. J2 is also the most common haplogroup for Jews in general of all backgrounds. I feel very sorry if some people with an axe to grind find these truths to be inconvenient.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This user has been vandalizing the article for a long time. I dont know what to do anymore! Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.110.63 (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps checking out Wiki entries for Zadokites would help clear some of this up? Zadokites went extinct after the destruction of the Second Temple - regardless of what claims were made in the book, about DNA of Kohanim, there is simply no genealogical evidence. If you check the redacted/deleted Wiki entry for Scienceprogenetic you will find the name of your hijacker - he is an assistant of Klyosov according to Klyosov's wiki entry.

The proposition that a family, after 19 centuries, would emerge to claim the mantle of Zadokite, with no provenence or documentation, is no less exhilerating than the discovery of the Coelacanth. Perhaps we can convince the hijacker to illuminate his pedigree with a Wiki entry titled "Long lost Zadokites found in Brazil". Jimharlow99 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User Jimharlow99 Chaim,

You recently vandalized the Zadok article and I am warning you that as soon as someone notices what you did there, they will revert all of your edits. Are you familiar with Jewish tradition? Or Jewish Literature? You are not part of that. There are so many documentation that states that certain families have the tradition of being descendants of an Cohanim branch that is link back to Zadok-Pinchas. This is something that you will not find in GOOGLE, so avoid yourself to denied Jewish tradition, documentation. This is not a topic for people like you (and so many others around that because of the lack of knowloadge and lack of acess to this type of Jewish material). Start buying books from Jewish authors from 13 to 15 century. Start with Cohen families, than move to Abdulezer (from the Tanacha, direct descandants of the Prophet Ezequiel Hakohen), than pick your grade. In these books it says that they are direct descendants of Joarib. And Joarib as the 5th grandson of Idaiah, the son of Joarib and the grandson of Jachin, is in turn a direct descendant of Zadok - Phinehas. I am sorry but Google will not help you here. You cannot buy Jewish tradition and the vast quantity of material that we have for millenniums based on your Google researches. These books testifies who are the family. (not you or anybody else - put that on your mind?). Family did sign so many regulations in the Sephardic community together with the greatest scholars and rabbis of their times: Joseph Caro, Meir Arama, Joseph Taitazak, Levi ben Habib, Samuel Uziel, Abram Seralvo, Joseph ben David Ibn Lev, Solomon Lebeth Hazan, Moses ben Yaech and others. (all of blessed memory). So keep the low key. I have all the books, documentation and materials wrote but the most renowned Jewish authors of their times, but I will not turn available to people like you. So, start doing more than using Google to denied Jewish books, authors, rabies, scholars, tradition and documentation. Godbye.--MCohenNY (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your message; I asked a few people here in London, skilled in Queen's English, to read it on my behalf and they do not understand it either. Can you help us all understand what you are trying to say? ChaimYermiyahu 18:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Chaim,

Yes you understood pretty well. You are just desperate for more information because your Google researches came back empty. I warned you that Google will not help you.

here in London?

You are not in London, but in Silicon Valley in California. You don’t have ‘friends’ in London. So, tell me the names and phone numbers of your pseudo-`friends` in London? Can I talk and contact them? So, do not try to play shaggy dog story. You signed yourself here in Wikipedia just 3 days ago, as Jim harlow 99 just to sabotage articles, to harass and to furnish around your private judgments without any acquaintance on the subjects. I knew it was you since the first day, so I added CHAIM on my previous comment above, after your Jim Harlow fake user name. Now you finally signed this comment as Chaim Yermiyahu. I also know your others pseudo-names. Your 15 minutes of fame is over. I will not waste my time with you again. Godbye --MCohenNY (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Chriscohen;

'''If your works are based on "secretive "  and speculative Jewish traditions that kept  hidden away from publics by mad secretive buffoons, then how come wikipedia allow you openly to edit and dictate informations to an important article even without providing these Jewish traditions references that you think support your claims? How would it be possible for us to believe,accept,and trust your edited article without having at least a chance even to Look,Validate,Examine,and Measure these secretive/hidden "Jewish traditions" that your works based on and refered to ? !!!'''

89.211.139.13 (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir,

This article is not about any work based on any particular Cohanim claim family tradition, but about results, coalescence DNA, mutation rates, and etc from profesionals in the fied in a general perspective... You seems not to understand the concepts of Wikipedia and about this article. The information that it is on the article came from third parties, not me, not any particular claim. Dr. Karl Skorecki, the founder of CMH in 1997, reported during a Conference for Kohanim in Jerusalem 2007 that – “Pinchas the zealot mentioned in the Bible may be the origin of J2 Cohens”. J1 Cohens have a coalescence to a much recent ancestral, that according to the latest article published by Nature, Journal of Human Genetics, in October 2009, this ancestral lived around the year of 1500 of this present era. (Can’t be of Pinchas-Zadok tree, or anyone from the Bible). According to the observed mutations rates and results published by Nature last month, J2aM410 Cohens share a common ancestor who lived 3100+/-200 years bp, as Skorecki revealed to the public in 2007 and Nature – Journal of Human Genetics, just confirmed on their latest official publication.

So, if you want to write or know more about personal Jewish Cohanim families tradition and claims, I suggest you to open a new article in Wikipedia and start collecting information. Take care. --MCohenNY (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris Stop the duck and diving! where did you get these hidden jewish traditions from? they are not in googles as you have had said! so how can we verify what your Pink Ass/pinchas y- dna should be? 89.211.139.13 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User,

This article it is not about any particular family tradition, claim or saga, I already told you that. How many times do I have to tell you? Dont waste my time. The relationship to Pinchas came from coalescences time, mutation rates, results on J2aM410 Cohens, not from any tradition. So, now you want to learn about Jewish Cohanim families tradition? Get off! This artilce is about Y-Chromossomal Aaron. Go buy books. It was Dr. Karl Skorecki, the founder of CMH in 1997, who reported during a Conference for Kohanim in Jerusalem 2007 that – “Pinchas the zealot mentioned in the Bible may be the origin of J2aM410 Cohens”. Latest results confirmed the exactly coalescence. Tradition has nothing to do with this. So, just go look for another excuse to vandalize the article. I will not waste my time with you again. Godbye! --MCohenNY (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dearest MCohenNY - I cannot understand your vitriol. I am not here to frustrate you, I am simply asking questions to find out how we can communicate better in reference to "Y-Chromosomal Aaron".  I did not undersatnd your first note, and I certainly do not understand your second note. Shavua Tov from Chelsea ChaimYermiyahu 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to this discussion page
What about moving the Pinchas/Zadokite discussion to the Zadokite page? There is ample energy, as indicated by the author of the Pinchas/'Zadokite connection, to warrant moving that entire section which "proves" J2a4 is Zadokite.

Is the Y-Chromosomal Aaron entry intended to act as a pivot point to more focused articles leaving it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions? It seems prejudicial to spend so much of this entry focused upon Pinchas/Zadokites. ChaimYermiyahu 01:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Jim Harlow,

Is your first name now Chelsea? You turned out to be a female now? Do you really think you can continue to play games? You signed 4 days ago in Wikipedia, just to hassle, pursue and to revolutionize articles? First you are Jim Harlow, than Chaim, now are you Chelsea? You also said that you are in London, but you are not. I am warned you not to proceed with this attitude. Editors always must reach consensus, but you are playing a diversion that it is not welcome with me. Don’t waste your time here anymore. Goodbye.-- (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr. talk I am not clear on how any of your messages pertain to Y-Chromosomal Aaron; I am not certain that you should be engaged in "warning" anyone in a public forum - it seems threatening, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have let your emotions get the best of you for reasons that are unknown to myself and others. Nevertheless, I am simply suggesting that the references to Zadok be moved to the Zadokite page; you've put a lot of work into the Zadokite hypothesis but your thesis has four significant holes that have not been addressed:


 * 1. There is not contemporary physical evidence of "Zadokite" Y-DNA since there is no such thing as homogeneous "Jewish DNA",
 * 2. There is no genealogical proof that the Zadokite hypothesis is anything other than a hypothesis of Dr. Skorecki, since we have no genetic or genealogical evidence that Pinchas was a genentic descendant of Aharon; Rashi, quoting the Talmud and Midrash, only complicates Pinchas' paternity when he explains that Pinchas' mother was a Midianite woman who may have slept with many different men as was common among the Midianites:


 * Because the tribes of Israel were mocking him, saying "Have you seen this son of the fattener, whose mother's father fattened calves for idolatrous sacrifices, and now he goes and kills a prince in Israel?!" Therefore, G-d traced his lineage to Aaron. (Pinchas' maternal grandfather was Jethro, who prior to his conversion to Judaism, was a pagan priest of the Midianites).


 * 3. The historic record of Jewish immigration into the Arabian peninsula, post destruction of the Second Temple, does not agree with your assertions that J2a4 is Zadokite - in fact, it could be represetnative of Karaites who represent an amalgamation of Jewish Arab Tribes, and
 * 4. The topic, "Y-Chromosomal Aaron" is a metaphor, comparing two things - science of genetics and Pentateuch; the thesis concerning Zadokites has interpreted the metaphor in a literal sense and attempts to prove a metaphor with a hypothesis.


 * I've read all of your commentary, and the revisions to your inserts into this page - can you help us all understand how a metaphor is proven by an unproven hypothesis with no verifiable historic evidence? If you cannot prove your hypothesis with anything other than syllogisms and abusive behavior, then perhaps we can both agree that your Zadokite inserts are best represented as hypotheses on the relevant Zadokite pages. Jimharlow99 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jim,

I see that you finally revealed and presented your real name, rather than Chelsea, Chaim and etc... I will spend my time with you one more time.

1)	1. “There is not contemporary physical evidence of "Zadokite" Y-DNA since there is no such thing as homogeneous "Jewish DNA"

-Jim, there are also no contemporary physical evidence of “Aaron” Y-DNA or the homogeneous of Cohanim DNA samples found today. So let’s also delete the Y-Chromossomal of Aaron? Jim, this is not how science develops, moves and works.


 * Firstly, as I noted in my previous message, "Y-Chromosomal Aaron" is a metaphor - not a noun. I said nothing of deleting "Y-Chromosomal Aaron" - I said the voluminous references to Zadokites, therein, should be moved to Zadokite pages where they belong - not in "Y-Chromosomal Aaron".Jimharlow99 (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

2. There is no genealogical proof that the Zadokite hypothesis is anything other than a hypothesis of Dr. Skorecki, since we have no genetic or genealogical evidence that Pinchas was a genentic descendant of Aharon;

-Jim, are you serious? This is an absurd. There is plenty genealogical evidence that Pinchas was descendant of Aharon. As a matter of fact, Pinchas was the grandson of Aaron. Spend time reading the Tora, Talmud.


 * There is no authoritative genealogy of the Zadokites or Pinchas that connects "Zadokite Y-DNA", which you provided to Anatole Klyosov, to the "Proven Zadokite descendants you illustrate within Y-Chromosomal Aaron". The conclusion you reach is much more elegant than the reasoning applied to reach it.Jimharlow99 (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

“Rashi, quoting the Talmud and Midrash, only complicates Pinchas' paternity when he explains that Pinchas' mother was a Midianite woman who may have slept with many different men as was common among the Midianites”

- Jim, this does not change nothing. What is this? You don’t have to worry about what the mother of Pinchas did on her life, but what the promise evoke to him on the Holy Scriptures.Holy Scpriptures tell us who is the father of Pinchas. The full name of Pinchas is Pinchas Ben El'Azar HaKohen, or Pinchas son of Elazar, the priest. The name of El'zar is El'azar Ben Aaron HaKohen, or Elazar son of Aaron Hakohen. Make no mistakes about it. In Judaism, no one dare to dennied his pedigree.


 * Again, you take a literal view of the english translation of the text - if we read the original Torah Hebrew text (without vowels) or Targum Onkelos, we cannot tell if the narrator of this portion is speaking of "Pinchas, the son of Eleazer, son of Aharon" (Pinchas ben Eleazer Ibn Aharon HaKohen), or whether he is referring to "Pinchas, son of Eleazer son of Aharon" (Pinchas ben Eleazer ben Aharon HaKohen). In the first instance, Pinchas is a cousin of Aharon, in the second instance he is a descndant of Aharon.  This is precisely the point made by Skorecki in his book - that there must be a genealogical reason for the divergent Y-DNA findings...otherwise we are left to guess why 80% of Sephardim are J1e and the rest are a mixture of different paternities including J2a4M410 among others.Jimharlow99 (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This english translation, of a Talmudic reference, leaves us with a number of questions which are vibrantly debated among scholars -

This is simply another absurd point of view. Also, Midrash tells us that a son usually possess the character of the mother, and the daughter of the father. Read Talmud and Midrash, and you will notice that the comment made by the Israelites have another interpretation. Israelites blamed Pinchas for his behavior and compared to his father`s mother. However, If you read Tora, you will notice what happened to Pinchas. Pinchas is the only Kohen that received a promise for eternal kehuna to all his descendants, forever. That is why it is important to figure out what class of Cohens today possesses the coalescence to TMRCA to Pinchas, according to DNA samples. It was Karl Skorecki, the founder of CMH, who first revealed to the public, that J2 Cohens have the precisely coalescence to the zealot mentioned on the Bible, called Pinchas. The bottleneck of these Cohanim DNA have the coalescence to Pinchas. This is the most that DNA can tell us. It was used, 9,12, 25, 37, 67 markers. You can’t get any better than this. The same results were officially confirmed last month because and it was published on most important and recognized Science Group of the world – Nature (Journal of Human Genetics), in October 2009.


 * Absurd to you - but you raise no Tanach, Midrashim or Talmudic references to refute it. Your assertion that "Midrash tells us that a son usually possess the character of the mother" warrants a reference, no?  I possess both Hebrew and english texts on my computer AND Talmud Babli and Talmud Yerushalmi adjacent to my desk - no reference to such a claim is found.  Your assertion that "Pinchas is the only Kohen to receive eternal kehuna" is an abuse of casuistic reasoning because it has not relevance to this conversation - then to conflate your assertion with genetic references is conflating a metaphor with scientific fact.  We do not know if Pinchas was genetic offspring of Eleazer, adopted, illegitimate...ad nauseum...there is scant evidence beyonf three entries in arguably vague detail.Jimharlow99 (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

3- Regarding the Karaites, the immigration that you said and etc…this is completely another article, claim and etc.. Remember that when we say Pinchas-Zadok, we are not specifically saying about the Saducees, or anything else, but modern-day Cohens on J2 that managed to share the TMCRA related to Pinchas bottleneck. Just like we have example from another haplogroup that is related to Khazar bottleneck date coalescence.


 * But that is precisely the point and it drives to the heart of your argument - the immigration of Sadducees, Boethusians, Zadokites, Essenes, Nazirites and Pharisees into the Arabian Peninsula is the exact historic evidence which refutes your allegations - there is simply no way to connect the dots. Then, to suddenly shift tone, to suggest "when we say Pinchas-Zadok we are not specifically saying about the Saducees, or anything else, but modern-day Cohens on J2 that managed to share the TMCRA related to Pinchas bottleneck" is mendacious beyond belief.  You have not yet logically connected contemporary Kohanim, to a hypothetical bottleneck, or a social group called "Zadokites", who went extinct 1,900 years ago.Jimharlow99 (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

4. "The topic, "Y-Chromosomal Aaron" is a metaphor".

- You can call it whatever you think is fine for you. However, that will not change a thing and will not change the article.



5. “The topic, "Y-Chromosomal Aaron" is a metaphor. Can you help us all understand how a metaphor is proven by an unproven hypothesis with no verifiable historic evidence?”

First, there is plenty historic evidence on Tora about the genealogy of Pinchas-Zadok


 * There are two (2) references to Pinchas' genealogy in Talmud and one (1) in Chumash (Torah)


 * 1. Sanhedrin 82a    "Pinchas son of Eleazer, son of Aharon the Priest" (Pinchas ben Eleazer Ibn Aharon HaKohen)
 * 2. Shevu'oth 35b    "Pinchas son of Eleazer son of Aharon" (Pinchas ben Eleazer ben Aharon)
 * 3. Parshat Pinchas  "Pinchas son of Eleazer, son of Aharon the Priest" (Pinchas ben Eleazer Ibn Aharon HaKohen)
 * Jimharlow99 (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

and the DNA of present-day Cohens in J2aM410 showed the coalescence to this precisely bootleneck. Second, this is the best we can get, because we will not find their thumbs, and even we someone find it, Jews cannot touch it because of Halacha. This was what Karl Skorecki found on DNA samples of Cohanim, and he announced to the public during a Cohanim Conference in Jerusalem just two years ago. Last month, Nature published an article on Journal of Human Genetics, that testifies the results, the mutation rates, the coalescence, the DNA bottleneck, and the results were calculated using 9,12,25,37 and 67 markers. If “ Y-Chromossomal Aaron’’ is a metaphor or a symbolic whatever you called it is something that you have to deal it soon or later. After all, we don’t have proof that Abraham existed, neither Moshe nor Aaron. DNA will not bring them (of blessed memory) back to life. We must work with what we have on hands, face the reality, work with the Tora genealogy and information, plus currently DNA samples of Cohens from all over the world. To ask anything other than that, is just the same as asking for proof that Jews ever existed. Godbye. --MCohenNY (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nature Magazine is not an authoritative article in the field of Human Genetics anymore than Popular mechanics is an authoritative voice for technical innovation. Jimharlow99 (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris The Nature Article is an UNCORRECTED PROOF http://www.cohen.org.br/springer/nature/2009/Klyosov_Hum_Genet.pdf

We want to know what made J2aM410 be the Pinchas haplogroup NOT J1,G,or E1b1,etc? From the bible(if the bible is true) we can see that Abraham Y DNA must be J1, because he come from Eberעֵבֶר Gen 14:13,and Eber עֵבֶר is the father of Hazarmaveth,Sheba,Jobab Gen 10.The DNA of Arabs in the south Hazarmaveth,Sheba are PROVEN to be 70-90% J1, therefore Abraham must be 70-90% J1. And Since Jacob's grand father is Eber(According to the Hebrew Bible Eber died at age 464 when Jacob was 20 Gen 11:14-17).Jacob therefore too must be a J1,and hence his two grand sons Moses and Aaron must be too 70-90% j1.

The question is how come Pinchas be J2 if he is a descendant of Aaron of Jacob of Abraham, ..and of Eber the father of Joctan Sheba,and Hazarmaveth Arabs?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.139.13 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User,

Thanks for you input. The article is not anymore uncorrect proof, but the article was published already on Nature. Visit their springer website. You will see there. We are not discussing the Y-Abraham, so I will not respond to this. J1 Cohens and other Cohens from other haplogroups dont have the coalescence to the botleneck to Pinchas. If you read the article, (you must pay for that) J1Cohens have the TMRCA as indicated on the article. Pinchas is related to J2 because of DNA mutation rates, coalescense, 9,12,25,37,67 markers results. Please, dont take the controvery of Jacob,Abraham, Eber, Arabs to this discussion. Here we deal with results from Cohanim only, not anygroup else, not about their ancestrality,not Arabs in the south Hazarmaveth,Sheba and etc... Put that on you mind once for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.22.166.194 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris

1.	DNA mutation rates, coalescence, 9,12,25,37,67 markers results means nothing if you have not established FIRST what the true Haplogroup of Pinchas the Offspring of Aaron is.

2.	what make you and other believe and absolutely so sure that J2 is the only Pinchas' haplogroup not J1,R1,E etc?

3.	According to the Bible Table of nations Gen 10 ,Arabs of the south Hazarmaveth, Sheba, Jocktanites are close related to Abraham, Ishmael ,Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Aaron, and we can not ignore them if we mention the Origin and Ancestry of pinchas Zadokites, since they are all  Hebrews come from Eber. All direct descendants of Eber the most recent common grand father of all of them.According to the Hebrew Bible Eber died at age 464 when Jacob was 20 Gen 11:14-17.

4.	What make you speculate that Pinchas and hence Aaron is J2 not J1 while most Arabs Hebrews are J1? Have you reconstituted Pinchas body or just speculation that goes against irrefutable scientific testable facts at hands(That Hebrew Arabs are most if not all J1) and even against the TaNach that testify Hebranic Male y-Origin of Aaron and Pinchas?

5.	     All  that come  if  we supposed that Pinchas is a legitimate true biological blood  grand son of Aaron not a sheketz.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.50.131 (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of the sources
I note with dismay the lengthy arguing back and forth on this talk page about how to interpret the sources. I am not an expert on coalescent theory, but I am very familiar with Wikipedia's rules on using sources. I will say this, and I hope that the regular editors of the article and this talk page will indicate their agreement; we are trying to build an encyclopedia, not publish original research. One way that people try to publish original research on Wikipedia is to "creatively" interpret primary sources to back up their position. According to the WP:Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources policy, Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. Since initial reports of the distribution or frequency of haplotypes are primary, we cannot interpret them. Any interpretation has to be backed up by a secondary source. This may mean the article seems out of date to some editors, but too bad. I hope this sermon provides some guidance to the editors here. Any thoughts? Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.50.131 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Aaron - El'azar - Pinchas
Jim, do not continue with your pet theory, saying that the mother of Pinchas slept with other mans, and left doubts about Pinchas genealogy. Do not try to say that Pinchas was a cousin of Aaron. This is very ridiculous. Who are us to refutate the clearness of Tora? It was G-od who spoke about the genealogy of Pinchas. Rashi and others made it clear, so, make no mistakes about it.

Why does verse 11 stress the lineage of Pinchas?

Rashi: (Because the tribes ridiculed him, saying, "Have you seen the descendant of Puti [i.e., Yisro], whose mother's father fattened calves for idol worship, and yet he killed a leader of one of the tribes of Israel?" Therefore, scripture traces his lineage to Aharon) Read (Sanhedrin 82b)

Sifsei Chachamim: At the end of Parshas Balak, the Torah already stated that Pinchas was "the son of Elazar the son of Aharon the priest" (25:7), so why does this point need to be stressed again here? Rashi concluded that the Torah stressed Pinchas' lineage again in response to the ridicule he suffered.

Kli Yakar: The tribes ridiculed him because it was difficult to believe that a person whose own father married somebody who was not born Jewish should feel genuine indignation against Zimri for cohabiting with a non-Jewish woman.

Likewise, Pinchas' grandfather was an idolater, so it is difficult to believe that he was genuinely disgusted by the worship of Ba'al Pe'or.

Be'er Basadeh: The tribes felt that the Torah only sanctions a true zealot to execute a person such as Zimri. They found it difficult to believe that his intentions were pure.

The Lineage of Pinchas (v. 11)

On reading the opening of our parsha, Rashi was troubled: Why does the Torah stress again that Pinchas was "the son of Elazar the son of Aharon the priest," when this was already stated in verse 25:7 above (as Sifsei Chachamim writes)?

Rashi answers that "Scripture traces his lineage to Aharon" here (for a second time) "because the tribes ridiculed him, saying, 'Have you seen the descendant of Puti, whose mother's father fattened calves for idol worship, and yet he killed a leader of one of the tribes of Israel?'"

This prompts the following questions:

Surely, "fattening cows" for the purposes of idol worship is a much less serious crime than the actual worship of idols, which is heresy. So, why did the tribes merely taunt Pinchas that his grandfather "fattened cows," when they could have stressed that Yisro had actually worshiped every idol in existence (Rashi to Shemos 18:11)?

Why does Rashi stress that Yisro was Pinchas' "mother's father," and not simply his "grandfather"? Surely, Pinchas' act of vengeance was a personal affront only to the tribe of Shimon, whose leader Pinchas killed. We would presume, however, that the other tribes would be thankful for Pinchas' speedy action which stopped a brazen act of public indecency and halted the plague, saving many of their lives. On what basis did Rashi conclude that all the tribes ridiculed Pinchas?

Did the tribes feel that Pinchas acted within the bounds of Jewish law or not? If they felt that Pinchas was legally justified in his actions because "If someone cohabits with a non-Jewish woman [in public], zealots have a right to strike him dead" (Rashi to 25:7), then what was their complaint? And if they felt that the above law only applies to a true zealot who feels righteous indignation, and Pinchas did not fall into this category [as Be'er Basadeh writes], then it follows that, in their opinion, Pinchas had no right to kill Zimri. Why then did they not criticize Pinchas for spilling innocent blood, rather than stressing the fact that his grandfather fattened cows for idol worship?

The Explanation

In his commentary to verse 6, at the end of Parshas Balak, Rashi explains why everybody was weeping, rather than taking action, at Zimri's brazenness: "The law was concealed from him [i.e., from Moshe]. So they all burst out weeping. At the incident of the Golden Calf, Moshe stood up against six hundred thousand people... yet here he seemed helpless! However, [this was orchestrated] so that Pinchas could come and take [the reward] that he deserved."

Now, the tribes could not possibly have known, or even imagined, that God had concealed the law from Moshe in order to reward Pinchas. So when they saw that Moshe chose not to act and then Pinchas took action in Moshe's presence, they were outraged. How could Pinchas have been so disrespectful to Moshe and the other sages, who were surely aware of the law and yet had not taken action? Pinchas had disgraced Moshe and the other sages by acting as if he alone was willing to take vengeance for God!

The fact that Moshe did not have Pinchas sentenced by the court for murder ultimately proved that Pinchas had been legally justified in his actions. Nevertheless, the tribes felt that Pinchas had acted disrespectfully to Moshe, since they were unaware that the law had been concealed from him by God. This led them to feel contempt for Pinchas, as they desired to defend Moshe's honor—and clearly, Moshe's honor was something that concerned all of the tribes, and not just the tribe of Shimon.

To the tribes, the "disrespectful" nature of Pinchas' actions indicated that he had not acted entirely out of moral necessity, but that he had allowed undesirable aspects of his personality to become unleashed. Pinchas, they concluded, was not a pure moralist but somewhat of an opportunist. Jumping to kill Zimri, before Moshe had decided on the appropriate course of action, suggested that Pinchas had a sadistic disposition and simply reveled in the opportunity to spill blood as soon as the law permitted him to do so.

Where was the tribes' proof? Rashi explains their line of thinking: "Have you seen the descendant of Puti whose mother's father fattened calves for idol worship?" The tribes could not bring proof from the fact that Yisro (Puti) was an idol-worshiper in general, because idol-worship is an ideological mistake which is not inherited by one's children. Rather, they stressed that Yisro had a cruel, sadistic nature in that he fattened cows only in order to slaughter them (to idols), i.e., he was cruel to animals. And since a cruel disposition can be inherited, it follows—argued the tribes—that Pinchas' opportunist killing must be an expression of a tendency to cruelty that he inherited from his grandfather.

On the other hand, they argued, the person that Pinchas killed was an inherently kind person, a tribal leader, who cared for the needs of his people. In fact, Zimri did what he did in an (albeit misguided) attempt to prove that it was permissible to cohabit with a non-Jewish woman, so as to save his tribe from being punished for doing likewise (see Rashi to 25:6). This point served to further the tribes' argument—for who but a cruel, sadistic person would kill a leader who cared so much for his people? In fact, they argued, don't nice people just bring out the worst in nasty people, who cannot bear the fact that somebody could be genuinely good-natured?

Pinchas' Connection to Aharon

A serious flaw in the tribes' argument was that, in addition to being the grandson of Yisro, Pinchas was also Aharon's grandson. So how can we be sure that he inherited the negative qualities of Yisro and not the good traits of Aharon?

In answer to this point, the tribes stressed that Yisro was Pinchas' "mother's father." By nature, a boy's disposition is most similar to that of his mother, and a girl to that of her father—a fact which the reader will have gleaned from Rashi's comment on Bereishis 46:15: "The males are attributed to Leah whereas the females are attributed to Ya'akov, to teach you that if the woman emits seed first, she will give birth to a male, and if the man emits seed first, she will give birth to a female." Thus, the tribes wished to argue that Pinchas would have inherited the disposition of his maternal and not paternal grandfather.

Rashi thus explains, "Scripture traces his lineage to Aharon," indicating that Pinchas actually inherited the nature of Aharon, who "pursued peace and brought people who were fighting with each other to love each other" (Rashi on 20:29 above). And this was proof that Pinchas' intentions had indeed been pure.

Jim, we will not find at least ONE Rabi who disagree with Tora. The genealogy of Pinchas is granted by the G-d of Israel that testified his lineaged. "G-d spoke to Moses saying, Pinchas, a son of Elazar and grandson of Aaron the priest, was the one who zealously took up my cause among the Israelites and turned My anger away from them…Therefore tell him that I have given him My covenant of peace…" Read Num. 25:10-12 Godbye --MCohenNY (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)