GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-07 > 1215159912


From: bill brock <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] J1 clusters
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:25:12 +0000


Hi Bonnie
I am # 63448 In your J1 group at the Y-Haplogroup J DNA Project Website you administer. First let me say how much I appreciate all of the hard work you do for all of us.

But now I feel that I need to comment on your second point. I think you are misinterpreting what Anatole said with regards to his Cohanim and not Cohanim in J1. He was not making any statement about which haplogroups may or may not be true Cohanim as you seem to be saying in your statement.

Bonnie

(To be recognized as a Cohen is, fundamentally, a religious > phenomenon, and I believe we should not speak loosely about the family > lineages who don't belong to the J1 Cohanim, as if they were not "real" > Cohanim since many of the J2 Cohanim have old and deep traditions of serving > their faith communities and honoring their ancestry as Cohanim. No > Jewish persons that I'm aware of have ever advocated that a person's > religious legitimacy as a Cohen should be judged by their DNA test > results. To be recognized as a Cohen is, fundamentally, a religious > phenomenon, and I believe we should not speak loosely about the family > lineages who don't belong to the J1 Cohanim, as if they were not "real" > Cohanim.)

In making this comment after bringing up your reference to Anatoles remarks about J1 you seem to attribute it to Anatole. He said nothing about J2 or any other Haplogroups claims to being Cohanim.

He was saying that in looking for a most recent common ancestor in J1 who have what is said to be the Cohanim markers that he found two groups. One that went to a common ancestor as you state around the be gaining of AD which he called the older, and one which had a common ancestor at around the 7th century AD which he calls the younger as you also state. He then said that they both had a common ancestor at a much earlier date(my other computers' monitor went out so I'm sorry I can't give his date as I can not access his papers on this laptop tonight and my memory is not reliable to such a degree.) I believe it was about 4000 years or so. The point he makes is that he found the older apparently had a man who was a Cohanim at its be gaining and that the younger group had a common ancestor who was not a Cohanim. He said that this second younger group was King David's line. So his point was just to show that by lumping all together you would get some who were descended from a Cohanim and some who shared the haplotype who were not descended from a Cohanim. When in fact they were two separate lines and should be looked at seperately. There was no intent to mislead anyone. You said , "I haven't followed Anatoly's whole argument, so I don't know exactly which haplotypes he is referring to here". Well it was not J2 or any Cohanim of other haplogroups. He was looking at the J1 group for a common ancestor and found two.
And it should be remembered it was a Cohanim and not Anatole who started this Cohen marker business and attributed it to J1 in the first place.

I am surprised at how thin skinned people get over this issue. Since no one can prove that Aaron was even a real person it seems like the question of his haplotype should be open to study without the emotion that it seems to generate. I really doubt that any Cohanim lose much sleep over this issue. I'm sure in dealing with all those people they contend with daily they have handled much harder problems than this.
Just thought that Anatoles' ideas was being mistaken.

Will the real Cohanim markers ever appear? :-)

While on this subject I just wonder why his payment gets so much negative play. He did say it went to further research and not in his pocket. And requests for money to further research and DNA testing is nothing new to this list. And since when is 15 dollars something to complain about these days. I would think that those who have university degrees should have incomes that make that amount small change.

Bill




> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 23:44:43 -0400> From: > To: > Subject: Re: [DNA> > Anatole spoke of, in J1,> > two "cohen" haplotypes, which I call "the older cohen base haplotype" > > (with a common ancestor being close to the beginning of AD) and "the > > younger cohen base haplotype" (7th century AD). It looks like the > > first was a cohen indeed, while the second was not a cohen at all. > > Hence, a mix of "cohens" and not "cohens" among their descendants. > I haven't followed Anatoly's whole argument, so I don't know exactly > which haplotypes he is referring to here. Maybe he is using the term > "cohen" here simply to mean haplotypes that match the 6-marker CMH? I > don't think that is a very helpful or wise use of the term "cohen," as > it gives it a meaning completely different from the original and widely > accepted usage.> > I know that religious tradition holds that there was only one Cohen > lineage, but I propose that this has been uncritically accepted by too > many genetic genealogists. This idea has been perpetuated by a > confluence of the early Y-DNA test results, with the few markers tested, > and the traditional beliefs of scripture. However, in works by > academic scholars of ancient religious history who are of a more secular > or scientific outlook, it is very much doubted that only one paternal > lineage was actually found among the high priests of ancient Israel. > Thus, it would not be surprising that among Jewish families today, there > are several strong clusters of Cohanim (in the religious sense), not > only the one made up of members of J1 (which is the apparently the > largest Cohen cluster today, according to the currently available data).> > To be recognized as a Cohen is, fundamentally, a religious > phenomenon, and I believe we should not speak loosely about the family > lineages who don't belong to the J1 Cohanim, as if they were not "real" > Cohanim.> since many of the J2 Cohanim have old and deep traditions of serving > their faith communities and honoring their ancestry as Cohanim. No > Jewish persons that I'm aware of have ever advocated that a person's > religious legitimacy as a Cohen should be judged by their DNA test > results. To be recognized as a Cohen is, fundamentally, a religious > phenomenon, and I believe we should not speak loosely about the family > lineages who don't belong to the J1 Cohanim, as if they were not "real" > Cohanim.> > Bonnie Schrack> Y-haplogroup J project administrator> > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
_________________________________________________________________
Enter the Zune-A-Day Giveaway for your chance to win — day after day after day
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-US&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Mobile_Zune_V1

This thread: