"'Adam" and its semantic roots: Hebrews/Phoenicians and the "red/ruddy" issue

[leperrine]

"'Adam" and its semantic roots: Hebrews/Phoenicians and the "red/ruddy" issue

EDIT BY MODERATION: This thread was extracted from the topic Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate? on a discussion about the assumed relationship between Indo-Europeans, ancient West Asian populations and a phenotype marked by pale skin and red/ginger hair.

Anybody want to share their thoughts?

Adam was Rudy after all. At least that's what his name means in Hebrew.

 

[Ygorcs]

Adam was Rudy after all. At least that's what his name means in Hebrew.

No, that's not. "Adam" means "man, human" and comes from the root meaning "ground, earth", so its most basic and original meaning was simply "earthling, the one who comes from the earth/ground". Not surprising given that it's a name given to someone who symbolically represented the first human being.

 

[MOESAN]

No, that's not. "Adam" means "man, human" and comes from the root meaning "ground, earth", so its most basic and original meaning was simply "earthling, the one who comes from the earth/ground". Not surprising given that it's a name given to someone who symbolically represented the first human being.

apparently this comparison was not limited to hebraic, if I rely on Wiki which says about the Welsh 'dyn' = "man", "human":
[h=3]?tymologie[/h]A comparer avec le breton den, le cornique den, don, le vieil irlandais duine, le gaulois gdonios (sens identique).
Le celtique *gdonios "homme" remonte ? une racine indo-europ?enne *dhghomios "le terrestre", d?riv? de dh(e)ghom "terre".

 

[leperrine]

No, that's not. "Adam" means "man, human" and comes from the root meaning "ground, earth", so its most basic and original meaning was simply "earthling, the one who comes from the earth/ground". Not surprising given that it's a name given to someone who symbolically represented the first human being.

The word adam in Hebrew means rosy, to be able to blush, or to see the blood through one’s skin. This is quite the way that Dr. James Strong defined the word in his Concordance well over 100 years ago. As an adjective, it is ruddy, and it is used in that manner in descriptions of King David found at 1 Samuel 16:12, 17:42, of King Solomon at Song of Sol. 5:10, and of the Nazirites described by Jeremiah at Lamentations 4:7: “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire”. The word adam means ruddy because the Hebrew word dam (Strong’s #1818) means blood.

אָדַם ʼâdam, aw-dam'; to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:—be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).

(Qal) ruddy (of Nazarites)


(Pual)


to be rubbed red


dyed red


reddened


(Hiphil)


to cause to show red


to glare


to emit (show) redness


(Hithpael)


to redden


to grow red


to look red


Just like all religions of the world the Hebrews utilized language and descriptions of the "first person" according to themselves. it doesn't represent all people on the planet. Also when translating ancient texts, the context is critical when understanding the meaning of words. Adam was ruddy just like all his descendants as described in the genealogies of ancient scriptures.

If you like, I will break down the linguistics utilizing a concordance and why the word Adam means Ruddy i.e. to show blood in the face/skin.

I can do that in a separate thread. I'm not going to derail this thread with definitions of Hebrew words. I utilized the definition of the word Adam and it's parallel to how a certain sect of peoples referred to themselves to answer "ToBeorNotToBe".

 

[Ygorcs]

apparently this comparison was not limited to hebraic, if I rely on Wiki which says about the Welsh 'dyn' = "man", "human":
�tymologie

A comparer avec le breton den, le cornique den, don, le vieil irlandais duine, le gaulois gdonios (sens identique).
Le celtique *gdonios "homme" remonte � une racine indo-europ�enne *dhghomios "le terrestre", d�riv� de dh(e)ghom "terre".

Yes, that seems to have been a common theme in old times. Those words, including "adam", probably referred generally to the human species in the beginning, only much later the meaning was narrowed down in many languages to mean just "male, man". It wasn't just in the Celtic languages that that PIE root *dghmon-, "earth, ground, soil", led to the derived word meaning "earthling, person who came from the earth" and therefore "human". The Romance words meaning "man" (Portuguese homem, Italian uomo, Spanish hombre) come from the very same root, homo, in Latin "human being, person" instead of the present meaning "man". Homo is the Latin equivalent to the Celtic forms(g)don-/den-. Also, Germanic languages had an exact cognatefrom PGM *gumó, which probably led to modern English bridegroom and German Bräutigam.

Interestingly (and a bit disturbingly perhaps) the same semantic shift from "human being" to "male human, man" happened in English, with Old English man "human" shifting to man "male person".

 

[Ygorcs]

The word adam in Hebrew means rosy, to be able to blush, or to see the blood through one’s skin. This is quite the way that Dr. James Strong defined the word in his Concordance well over 100 years ago. As an adjective, it is ruddy, and it is used in that manner in descriptions of King David found at 1 Samuel 16:12, 17:42, of King Solomon at Song of Sol. 5:10, and of the Nazirites described by Jeremiah at Lamentations 4:7: “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire”. The word adam means ruddy because the Hebrew word dam (Strong’s #1818) means blood.

אָדַםʼâdam, aw-dam'; to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:—be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).

(Qal) ruddy (of Nazarites)


(Pual)


to be rubbed red


dyed red


reddened


(Hiphil)


to cause to show red


to glare


to emit (show) redness


(Hithpael)


to redden


to grow red


to look red


Just like all religions of the world the Hebrews utilized language and descriptions of the "first person" according to themselves. it doesn't represent all people on the planet. Also when translating ancient texts, the context is critical when understanding the meaning of words. Adam was ruddy just like all his descendants as described in the genealogies of ancient scriptures.

If you like, I will break down the linguistics utilizing a concordance and why the word Adam means Ruddy i.e. to show blood in the face/skin.

I can do that in a separate thread. I'm not going to derail this thread with definitions of Hebrew words. I utilized the definition of the word Adam and it's parallel to how a certain sect of peoples referred to themselves to answer "ToBeorNotToBe".

Well, I don't know who Dr. Strong 100 years ago was (edit: a Methodist biblical scholar and theologian born in 1844.), but apparently modern linguists specialized in the scientific study of Semitic languages do not consider that the most likely etymology for Adam is "rosy, ruddy, reddened face" (let alone "red-haired, ginger", I simply never heard about that etymological hypothesis) or anything of that sort. The most precise meaning would've be "earthling, the one who comes from the earth/ground/soil = person". The use of the root to convey a "red" color could also have come from the same semantic relationship with "ground, soil". This etymology is not just supported by modern linguists who study Semitic roots, but is also surprisingly confirmed as pretty plausible by the fact that PIE languages (and maybe even other language families) also have examples of the word "man" deriving from the root for "earth, ground".

According to what I've read about this association with "red", some sources do link the adjective "red" with the same root *'dm "soil, ground", too, so that it would come from a meaning related to "[the color of] clay, soil [supposedly of reddish ground]". Or it may also be related to "blood" (dam), but not necessarily in the sense of "red color" (let alone specifically "red-haired", which is what ToBeOrNotToBe really wanted to know about).

What is certain is that Hebrew "Adam" has many cognates in other Semitic languages (Arabic, Akkadian, Ge'ez etc.), and in all of them the sense is related to some person, not to his/her "red qualities": "person", "human", "important person, noble", "slave", "servant", "people". I fail to see how "ruddy" could be interpreted as "servant" by some, "man, people" by others and "important person" by others still... but I can definitely realize that kind of semantic shift if the original meaning was simply "earthling, human person, that who came from the ground/earth".

Anyway, you're definitely right that this is not the appropriate thread for this discussion. I think all possibilities are still at stake.

 

[leperrine]

Well, I don't know who Dr. Strong 100 years ago was (edit: apparently a Methodist biblical scholar and theologian born in 1844...), but modern linguists specialized in the scientific study of Semitic languages do not consider that the most likely etymology for Adam is "rosy, ruddy, reddened face" or anything of that sort, but just "earthling, the one who comes from the earth/ground/soil". This etymology is not just supported by modern linguists who study Semitic roots, but is also surprisingly confirmed as pretty plausible by the fact that PIE languages (and maybe even other language families) also have examples of the word "man" deriving from the root for "earth, ground".

Then how would you define the same word in which I gave other examples? The word Adam and all it's offshoots must be translated in context. What experts are you referring to in the definition of Adam being translated as "Earthling"? I've studied these matters under many experts. Those who specialize in Semitic languages and Greek. If you have sources that are more correct than what I'm referring then please provide your sources.

Adam and Man are synonyms. When looking at the original languages you'll see that in many instances when you see the term "man" it is the same word for Adam. Because in the context of ancient Semitic people to be a Man was to be a descendant of Adam.

An offshoot of the word adam does refer to soil or earth, but it's "Red Earth" Just like Dam in Hebrew means blood. RED. Refer to 1 Samuel 16:12, 17:42, Song of Sol. 5:10, and of the Nazirites described by Jeremiah at Lamentations 4:7. I guess the Nazarites were more "earthly" in body than rubies? no it's apparent Adam refers to being red just like rubies are red.

One example of this is Adam, odem and Edom, which are actually all the same word in paleo-Hebrew, but each were given different vowel points by the Masoretic rabbis. Strong assigned these three nouns different numbers for that reason, and also assigned different numbers for adam as a common noun, as a verb, and as an adjective. But in the original and ancient Hebrew, which did not use vowel points, for all of these uses of the word it was spelled only one way, אדם, or from right-to-left, Aleph-Daleth-Mem, in English ADM. So in Strong’s lexicon the word adam has entries at 119 through 124. Then at 125 there is a word adamdam, which is reddish, and at 127 adamah, which is red soil. The root word for adamdam and adamah is correctly listed by Strong as 119, adam, since the shorter word is not derived from the longer, but here we must also ask, why does adam mean ruddy, or reddish, in the first place? The only proper answer could be that the Hebrew word for blood is dam, Strong’s # 1818. The word adam must have been derived from the word dam, and it means ruddy or blood-red, because dam means blood.

In language, so far as I have ever seen, the simple noun never gets its origin from the more complex noun. Rather, it is the simple noun which lends itself as a stem forming more complex words.


The word adam has several uses, so James Strong separated them with distinct entries in his lexicon.


119 adam, verb, to be ruddy, flush, show blood in the face
120 adam, noun, man
121 Adam, proper name
122 adam, adjective, rosy, ruddy
123 Edom, proper name, same word as Adam (another story entirely...)
124 odem, noun, redness


But all of these are the exact same original word.


The more complex words, adamah (soil, 127) and adamdam (reddish 125), must have come from these words, and not the other way around.


And there is only one other even more basic word that all of these words must have come from, which also explains why they all basically mean "red" but are also related to the ruddiness or rosy color of a man:


1818 dam, noun, blood.


Adam means ruddy or rosy because dam means blood. Then by extension, adamah refers to reddish-colored soil because adam means ruddy or red, like blood.

Another example as context:

Brenton’s Septuagint at Song of Solomon 5:9-12:


“9 What is thy kinsman more than another kinsman, O thou beautiful among women? what is thy kinsman more than another kinsman, that thou hast so charged us? 10 My kinsman is white and ruddy, chosen out from myriads. 11 His head is as very fine gold, his locks are flowing, black as a raven. 12 His eyes are as doves, by the pools of [blue] waters, washed with [white] milk, sitting by the pools.” [brackets mine]


The KJV renders this same passage thusly:


“9 What is thy beloved [kinsman] more than another beloved [kinsman], O thou fairest 3303 among women? what is thy beloved [kinsman] more than another beloved [kinsman], that thou dost so charge us? 10 My beloved [kinsman] is white and ruddy 122, the chiefest among ten thousand. 11 His head is as the most fine [white] gold, his locks are bushy [the LXX has flowing], and black as a raven. 12 His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the [blue] rivers of waters, washed with [white] milk, and fitly set.” [brackets mine]


The Hebrew word for “ruddy” here is Strong’s #122: 'adom {aw-dome'} Meaning: 1) red, ruddy (of man, horse, heifer, garment, water, lentils). Origin: from 119: ... to show blood (in the face), i.e., flush or turn rosy ....”

 

[Ygorcs]

Then how would you define the same word in which I gave other examples? The word Adam and all it's offshoots must be translated in context. What experts are you referring to in the definition of Adam being translated as "Earthling"? I've studied these matters under many experts. Those who specialize in Semitic languages and Greek. If you have sources that are more correct than what I'm referring then please provide your sources.

Adam and Man are synonyms. When looking at the original languages you'll see that in many instances when you see the term "man" it is the same word for Adam. Because in the context of ancient Semitic people to be a Man was to be a descendant of Adam.

[...]

In language, so far as I have ever seen, the simple noun never gets its origin from the more complex noun. Rather, it is the simple noun which lends itself as a stem forming more complex words.

Thanks for your points. Yes, indeed, the sources I've looked for (like the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon) in fact consider 'adam "man, mankind" and 'adom "ruddy, reddish" as different words, even though I'm sure the lack of vowels in the usual Hebrew script must've hidden that. But you tell me that these words were actually the same until somehow they were made independent "artificially" just because of Masoretic rabbis... I'll take that for granted for now, because I don't have any knowledge against that explanation, but you will certainly forgive me for finding that kind of ad hoc explanation for the close similarity of two words a bit suspicious.

Don't get me wrong, you're clearly very well informed, especially about Strong's views on the etymology of this word, but let me just say that it is a really wild assumption that even Proto-Semites, and not just Hebrews and other contemporary Central Semitic tribes, had a myth based on a first man already called Adam (supposedly "ruddy", though I still fail to see how that matters to a hypothesis based on ginger, red-haired people) even before the split of Semitic languages. 'Adam and its root *'dm linked to the meaning "mankind, human, man" is not a Hebrew thing, it covers all the Semitic groups. After all, several roots clearly cognate to 'adam also existed in other branches of Semitic languages and in all cases referred to "person, human, man" or a category of people, including Akkadian, Ge'ez and South Arabian languages.

So you'd have to assume (or provide evidences) that Proto-Semitic people already used the name 'adam to refer to men precisely because they already had a common Adam myth thousands of years before the Hebrews (that would in any way be a very unlikely etymology, I mean, to use the name of one specific and revered individual, no matter how important in their mythology, to name each men of their people and others? Do we have any other example of such a derivation, from "proper noun that names the first man in our creation myth" to "all people of mankind"?)

As for your assumption that in languages simple nouns never get their origin from the more complex nouns (whatever "complex" and "simple" mean here), I definitely don't think that's a linguistically demonstrated rule in the evolution of languages, just a general impression. Actually, I often see exactly the opposite, for example Portuguese/Spanish encarnado, "red", coming from "meat, flesh", negro from the PIE root meaning "night". That's in fact pretty common: a simple word, like an adjective, deriving from some comparison or relationship with a more complex being or phenomenon (e.g. day, night, earth, meat). The more complex and general words are usually less subject to vocabulary replacement than the simpler terms, like colors, visual qualities, etc. I can easily realize the likelihood of a semantic transition from soil, ground to having a color similar to the ground, the soil, especially through noun derivation. In fact, even modern Portuguese derived terroso, literally "full of earth/ground/soil" in expressions like tons terrosos"earthy tones", which indicate a palette from brownish to reddish colors.

I'd also be interested to know how the word dam can be definitely assumed to lead to 'adam (and the 'adom "red" variant), because Semitic languages usually have triliteral roots, and the Semitic root for 'adam is *'dm (triliteral: ' + d + m; and which according to dictionaries means both "ground, soil" and "red"), which fits 'adam and 'adom perfectly, but not dam (a consonant is missing there, something much more unusual in Semitic noun derivation). The word is not just a + dam ("blood"), that's not how Semitic languages usually work, with prefixes or suffixes attached to an unchanged root."Man" and "red" derive from a consonantal combination of 3 consonants *'dm which simply does not exist in dam. It's intriguing. Maybe that's the reason why the sources I found say there is "perhaps" or "probably" a link to *'dm and thereby 'adam.

In any case, I found the information you gathered pretty convincing, too. I'll read more on this subject because it's really interesting, especially in the work of modern linguists (biblical scholars aren't usually experts in cross-comparison of Semitic languages and the Proto-Semitic reconstruction, and the focus will be naturally on Hebrew only). But I'll keep in mind the unquestionably plausible evidences you provided. Thanks.

EDIT 1: Now I remembered an interesting hypothetical connection of the "red > ground, soil" derivation with the known etymology of the words Egyptians used for the core of their country, *kmt (*kemet) meaning "black land", as opposed to the *deshret, meaning precisely "the red land", probably referring to more arid territories further from the Nile valley. So, it is certain that at least the Egyptians, virtual neighbors of the Israelites, also derived words referring to the land/ground from adjectives like "black" and, precisely, "red".

EDIT 2: I found this very plausible and in my opinion much more sensible/believable explanation laid out in this blog, based on the position held by Ernest Klein, an expert on Semitic languages, in his Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of thee Brew Language. It makes sense to me. Needless to say that it confirms what I said above, that "'adam" meaning "human, man, mankind" comes from the word referring to "ground, soil" (in a way similar to the development of "homo" in Latin and its cognates in other IE languages), and "ground" on its turn is related to the root for "red". It also explains why dam "blood" unusually is one of a handful of biliteral roots, explaining that it's the most basic and earliest word.

http://www.balashon.com/2006/08/adom.html

I'm sure many people have noticed the connection between the words adom, adam אדם - man, dam דם blood and adama אדמה - soil / ground. Klein writes that they are indeed related, and provides the following development.

The first, most basic word is dam. Klein writes that it is "one of the few biradical nouns in Hebrew." (We've also seen delet and keshet among others.)

From dam we get adom - according to Klein meaning "the color of blood".

Adama (ground, soil, earth, land) derives from adom - originally meaning "the red arable ground".

Lastly, adam, Klein writes, properly means "the one formed from adama אדמה, the ground." He points out there is a similar development in Latin, where homo (man, source of "human") is related to humus (ground) - the source of exhume (to take out of the ground) and humble (lowly, "on the ground").

 

[leperrine]

Thanks for your points. Yes, indeed, the sources I've looked for (like the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon) in fact consider 'adam "man, mankind" and 'adom "ruddy, reddish" as different words, even though I'm sure the lack of vowels in the usual Hebrew script must've hidden that. But you tell me that these words were actually the same until somehow they were made independent "artificially" just because of Masoretic rabbis... I'll take that for granted for now, because I don't have any knowledge against that explanation, but you will certainly forgive me for finding that kind of ad hoc explanation for the close similarity of two words a bit suspicious.

Don't get me wrong, you're clearly very well informed, especially about Strong's views on the etymology of this word, but let me just say that it is a really wild assumption that even Proto-Semites, and not just Hebrews and other contemporary Central Semitic tribes, had a myth based on a first man already called Adam (supposedly "ruddy", though I still fail to see how that matters to a hypothesis based on ginger, red-haired people) even before the split of Semitic languages. 'Adam and its root *'dm linked to the meaning "mankind, human, man" is not a Hebrew thing, it covers all the Semitic groups. After all, several roots clearly cognate to 'adam also existed in other branches of Semitic languages and in all cases referred to "person, human, man" or a category of people, including Akkadian, Ge'ez and South Arabian languages.

So you'd have to assume (or provide evidences) that Proto-Semitic people already used the name 'adam to refer to men precisely because they already had a common Adam myth thousands of years before the Hebrews (that would in any way be a very unlikely etymology, I mean, to use the name of one specific and revered individual, no matter how important in their mythology, to name each men of their people and others? Do we have any other example of such a derivation, from "proper noun that names the first man in our creation myth" to "all people of mankind"?)

As for your assumption that in languages simple nouns never get their origin from the more complex nouns (whatever "complex" and "simple" mean here), I definitely don't think that's a linguistically demonstrated rule in the evolution of languages, just a general impression. Actually, I often see exactly the opposite, for example Portuguese/Spanish encarnado, "red", coming from "meat, flesh", negro from the PIE root meaning "night". That's in fact pretty common: a simple word, like an adjective, deriving from some comparison or relationship with a more complex being or phenomenon (e.g. day, night, earth, meat). The more complex and general words are usually less subject to vocabulary replacement than the simpler terms, like colors, visual qualities, etc. I can easily realize the likelihood of a semantic transition from soil, ground to having a color similar to the ground, the soil, especially through noun derivation. In fact, even modern Portuguese derived terroso, literally "full of earth/ground/soil" in expressions like tons terrosos"earthy tones", which indicate a palette from brownish to reddish colors.

I'd also be interested to know how the word dam can be definitely assumed to lead to 'adam (and the 'adom "red" variant), because Semitic languages usually have triliteral roots, and the Semitic root for 'adam is *'dm (triliteral: ' + d + m; and which according to dictionaries means both "ground, soil" and "red"), which fits 'adam and 'adom perfectly, but not dam (a consonant is missing there, something much more unusual in Semitic noun derivation). The word is not just a + dam ("blood"), that's not how Semitic languages usually work, with prefixes or suffixes attached to an unchanged root."Man" and "red" derive from a consonantal combination of 3 consonants *'dm which simply does not exist in dam. It's intriguing. Maybe that's the reason why the sources I found say there is "perhaps" or "probably" a link to *'dm and thereby 'adam.

In any case, I found the information you gathered pretty convincing, too. I'll read more on this subject because it's really interesting, especially in the work of modern linguists (biblical scholars aren't usually experts in cross-comparison of Semitic languages and the Proto-Semitic reconstruction, and the focus will be naturally on Hebrew only). But I'll keep in mind the unquestionably plausible evidences you provided. Thanks.

EDIT 1: Now I remembered an interesting hypothetical connection of the "red > ground, soil" derivation with the known etymology of the words Egyptians used for the core of their country, *kmt (*kemet) meaning "black land", as opposed to the *deshret, meaning precisely "the red land", probably referring to more arid territories further from the Nile valley. So, it is certain that at least the Egyptians, virtual neighbors of the Israelites, also derived words referring to the land/ground from adjectives like "black" and, precisely, "red".

EDIT 2: I found this very plausible and in my opinion much more sensible/believable explanation laid out in this blog, based on the position held by Ernest Klein, an expert on Semitic languages, in his Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of thee Brew Language. It makes sense to me. Needless to say that it confirms what I said above, that "'adam" meaning "human, man, mankind" comes from the word referring to "ground, soil" (in a way similar to the development of "homo" in Latin and its cognates in other IE languages), and "ground" on its turn is related to the root for "red". It also explains why dam "blood" unusually is one of a handful of biliteral roots, explaining that it's the most basic and earliest word.

http://www.balashon.com/2006/08/adom.html

Great inputs Ygorcs, we can discuss these matters in another thread so we don't derail this one. I will say that the reason that I mentioned the etymology of not only the word Adam, but the description of many biblical characters was to illustrate how they described themselves in comparison to "fair" complexion and how "ruddy" might also be a description of not only the complexion, but also the color of their hair. You are correct that the Word ADM is specific to the Biblical narrative. Something else I found fascinating was both the 9th and 11th editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in the article “Phoenicia”, explain that the word is properly derived from φοινός (phoinos), as any Greek scholar should find plainly evident. Liddell & Scott define φοινός as “blood-red”.

 

[Ygorcs]

Great inputs Ygorcs, we can discuss these matters in another thread so we don't derail this one. I will say that the reason that I mentioned the etymology of not only the word Adam, but the description of many biblical characters was to illustrate how they described themselves in comparison to "fair" complexion and how "ruddy" might also be a description of not only the complexion, but also the color of their hair. You are correct that the Word ADM is specific to the Biblical narrative. Something else I found fascinating was both the 9th and 11th editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in the article “Phoenicia”, explain that the word is properly derived from φοινός (phoinos), as any Greek scholar should find plainly evident. Liddell & Scott define φοινός as “blood-red”.

As far as I know, the etymology for "Phoenicia" is still a bit controversial, but as you say the most likely source is the Greek for "blood red", however what I had read before was that it was associated with the milennia-old fame of modern Lebanon for its expensive purple dyes (for a long time the most valued purple tone was usually named Tyrian purple, from Tyre, Phoenicia), something which really set that land apart from others and was its hallmark in international relations.
(That is, if the assumption made by ToBeOrNotToBe is that red-haired people had expanded extensively in West Asia and Europe together with the IE expansion taking a higher frequency of red hair to a huge expanse of Eurasia... All of which also leads me to another quibble of mine, which is that it's odd that ginger hair would've been supposedly strongly associated with Near Eastern speakers of pre-PIE and spread by them, however according to your point of view the label "red people, red-haired" would've been associated with Phoenicians and Hebrews, that is, Semitic Canaanites. Even populations unquestionably much more Indo-Europeanized like Greeks would've seen them as so much more "ruddy" and/or "red-haired" than themselves that they would've called them "the red/ruddy ones". That's really strange if supposedly IEs were the ginger ones, but Central Semites ended up being the ones who were supposedly so distinct from the other populations that they could be described as "the red ones", which implies the others were not particularly "red", and in fact none of them apparently was named based on that. Did West Asian pre-PIES lose most of their genes for red hair when they went to Europe and Central Asia, but the Semitic peoples absorb most of them? Strange...).

In fact, I think the link "blood-red >>> purple dye >>> land of purple dyes" makes sense in an archaeological and historical sense, because that's what Phoenicia was really famous for till the late Roman era (I don't think they were strikingly more pale-skinned or red-haired than other lands the Mediterranean peoples were already aware of, including the British isles). And that semantic shift strikes me as very plausible if you consider that purple was a much rarer color (so it was unlikely that all languages already had specific nouns to describe it), and that even modern languages like Portuguese and Galician experienced the very same semantic shift from red to purple, that is, "roxo" is a cognate to Spanish "rojo" and French "rouge", but instead of "red" it actually means "purple" in Galician/Portuguese. There's also Old English bleoread and Welsh glasgoch, from roots meaning literally "blue red". In more recent times, Tok Pisin also derived "purple" from "red", hap ret (half red).

 

[leperrine]

Great input Ygorc.

I actually read that quote from Balashon as saying the same thing I said. That Adam is derived from dam. Dam being the first or root word that Adam/Adom is derived from. Dam = The color of blood (red).

I don't know why he would use Latin as an example only to contradict what he just previously wrote? How odd.

Here's something else very interesting I discovered when looking at the etymology of the word Phoenicia.

Both the 9th and 11th editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in the article “Phoenicia”, explain that the word is properly derived from φοινός (phoinos), as any Greek scholar should find plainly evident. Liddell & Scott define φοινός as “blood-red”.

Here's Josephus saying the same thing I've been stating.

Here's a quote from JOSEPHUS’ ANTIQUITIES 1:1:2

“2. Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth.* God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself ...”

 

[Ygorcs]

Great input Ygorc.

I actually read that quote from Balashon as saying the same thing I said. That Adam is derived from dam. Dam being the first or root word that Adam/Adom is derived from. Dam = The color of blood (red).

I don't know why he would use Latin as an example only to contradict what he just previously wrote? How odd.

Here's something else very interesting I discovered when looking at the etymology of the word Phoenicia.

Both the 9th and 11th editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in the article “Phoenicia”, explain that the word is properly derived from φοινός (phoinos), as any Greek scholar should find plainly evident. Liddell & Scott define φοινός as “blood-red”.

Here's Josephus saying the same thing I've been stating.

Here's a quote from JOSEPHUS’ ANTIQUITIES 1:1:2

“2. Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth.* God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself ...”

There is no doubt that there is some relationship between the root dam ("blood") and 'adam. The controversy here is in the details: the kind of semantic chain of words that led to 'adam, if it came from the derived "red" adjective or from the derived noun "earth" (no source that I saw claimed it came directly from dam, "blood", which I'm not sure but I can only attribute to the fact that 'adam seems to come from a triliteral *'dm root, not from the biliteral and supposedly more basic/ancient *dm root).

As I understood, you claim that the form 'adam existed because that first man was assumed to be of "ruddy" complexion. However, that is not what I've found not only in the Balashon blog, but also in the writing of Flavius Josephus (he explicitly states that the "red" thing was not at all because of his looks, but because of his origin from the ground, "red earth"), in the etymological dictionary of Hebrew roots in the Old Testament and in the footnotes of an English annotated Torah (a friend of mine informed me this one):

7) Man. אָדָם (adam) is formed from the earth (***, adamah, thus “earthling”). In modern terms this is an assonance rather than a correct etymology. Like-sounding words were thought to hint at a special association of concepts. An English equivalent might be God fashioned a soul from soil.

All of the sources above link 'adam instead to a direct derivation from ground, soil, earth, dirt, as I said ("the one who came from the earth", basically "earthling), which on its turn would have a relationship to dam. Meanwhile, 'adom/'adamin the meaning of "red, ruddy" would also have the same relationship to dam (blood). Notice Flavius Josephus makes the meaning of 'adam explicit (maybe because he was speaking to a mainly Graeco-Roman audience) in that "the red one" doesn't mean he had anything red/ruddy in him, but that he came from the "red earth", and he adds: all virgin and true earth looks red. This color-soil relationship is also found, as I said above, by the relevant distinction Egyptians made, though in a very distinct context and with a very distinct evaluation of the "red earth", between their beloved kemet (black earth) and the mostly foreign deshret (red earth). The ground/dirt-human connection also fits the story of the Genesis and the general Hebrew and later biblical tradition much better than the assumption that Hebrews presumed the "trademark" that set the first man apart, his "label", was the ruddy [white] man.

The order of word derivation thus seems to have been this one (even according to some religious sources, which connect this derivation to a higher metaphysical meaning): dam (blood) > 'adamah (ground, earth, soil) > 'adam (human), and through another means of adjectival derivation along the centuries dam > 'adom (red, ruddy). The precedent that demonstrates this kind of earth-human association was indeed found in ancient populations (PIE *dhéghom "earth, ground" > *g'hmó > Latin homo) also reinforces that this is at least plausible, and the fact that ancient Jewish documents confirm that relationship makes it really likely.

That fits nicely with the generally correct observation that nouns and verbs usually precede and are less subject to change and replacement than adjectives, including colors (that is, it is much more common that earth, soil exists as a word well before the adjective red, and more likely that red comes from blood or ground than the inverse). It is really important to notice that a wide array of apparently very distinct words can be formed out of triliteral (and much more seldom biliteral) roots in Semitic languages, for they don't work in the same way as Indo-European languages, where noun derivation usually comes from prefix-root-suffix forms. So, it's sometimes hard to notice what kind of semantic association was made originally that led to many words of totally different meanings.

 

[Maleth]

The Maltese language has a very high percentage of semetic words and adam in the Maltese language means bones written Għadam (Għ) is silent

.

 

[leperrine]

I'm not saying Dam is the root for ground, earth or soil, but it is the root for Adamah, Adam, etc... There is already a word for earth/ground in Hebrew. It's Erets, which is used over 252 times in the book of Genesis alone and disproportionately more than Adamah when referring to land, ground, etc... through all scripture. The only true way to derive the meaning of these words is by context because these words can have multiple meanings.

Let me further elaborate why Adam was made from red clay and why he was ruddy.

On a side note: Not all theologians are honest when making inquires into the meaning of certain scriptures. While many do great work, they are usually filled with bias. They interpret these things to match their theology. Take your pick of thousands of different denominations. They think all people on earth came from Adam which is intellectually dishonest. In my honest opinion this is for the sole purpose of universalizing a belief system in order to appeal to more people for profit or they're just plain ignorant.

What's even more absurd is thinking all people on earth came from Noah and his wife.... Takes a great deal of mental gymnastics to believe this. Anyone who reads these texts with an honest inquiry will realize Adam through all scripture is about a particular family tree. That's why a great part of it is dedicated to recording a genealogy, even in the New Testament. Noah and his wife would of produced children born in their likeness. It's only through religion do they force their dogma into the meaning of somehow his children magically produced all the races of people on the earth.

I say this because once you remove the religious dogma the meaning is made abundantly clear.

This gives us further clues about the meaning and appearance of this mythical Adam figure and why I gave several examples of the descriptions of biblical figures which are described as being ruddy, which is connected to the name Adam. It's because they are recorded as being from the family tree of Adam (first ruddy man). They are a ruddy people. Two of the most prominent figures in the Bible, David and Solomon are described as ruddy. Thus it makes perfect sense they would have a creation story about the first man in their family tree as having the same appearance as themselves. So much so that it's literally connected to his name.



In the Hebrew mind the importance for blood to be connected to the name of Adam makes sense because of their belief that life was in the blood and why blood sacrifice was essential for the recompense of sin.

Leviticus 17:11


11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’


This is first illustrated when YHWH created garments for Adam and Eve when they sinned. Animals were "killed" sacrificed in order to cloth them. This concept is even taken into Christianity and the purpose of the shedding of the blood by Christ. He was the sacrificial lamb.

This is from the source you quoted. They are saying Adam comes from Dam, color of blood = Red.

"The first, most basic word is dam. Klein writes that it is "one of the few biradical nouns in Hebrew." (We've also seen delet and keshet among others.)


From dam we get adom - according to Klein meaning "the color of blood".

(note: Here he admits that Adam comes from dam. more context for the meaning of dam From Strong’s Lexicon# “H1818 ... dâm, dawm; from 1826 (compare 119 (ruddy show blood in the face); blood (as that which when shed causes death) of man or an animal; by analogy the juice of the grape; figuratively (especially in the plural) bloodshed (i.e., drops of blood)”)


Adama (ground, soil, earth, land) derives from adom - originally meaning "the red arable ground"."


Again from your same source:

7) Man. אָדָם (adam) is formed from the earth (***, adamah, thus “earthling”). In modern terms this is an assonance rather than a correct etymology. Like-sounding words were thought to hint at a special association of concepts. An English equivalent might be God fashioned a soul from soil. (note: here he's giving an example not an actual rendition.)

To correct #7 from that quote. Adam is formed from the "dust" of the earth. i.e the clay or smashed particles from the red arable land. Also he utilized the wrong Hebrew word that's used in scripture. This is actually very important. Let me illustrate. I put Adam in bold below.

Genesis 2:7-8


וייצר יהוה אלהים את-האדם עפר מן-האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים 7 ויהי האדם לנפש חיה


ויטע יהוה אלהים גן-בעדן מקדם וישם שם את-האדם אשר יצר 8


7 And the LORD God formed man (The Adam) of the dust of the ground(Red Arable Ground), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man(Adam) whom he had formed.

את = eth, - = MAQAF, ה = ha, אדם = adam


This is what is known as a “noun common masculine singular absolute”, according to the electronic program “Bible Works”. Each one of these component parts of this Hebrew word is very important to fully understand the meaning of the noun (or name). I'm pointing this out to also demonstrate that Adam and man in the Bible is the same creation and person. Gen 1 & 2 is the telling of the same creation. I can break this down verse by verse.

853. את ’êth, ayth; apparently contracted from 226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely.

226. אות ’ôwth th; probably from 225 (in the sense of appearing); a signal (literal or figurative), as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence

eth-ha Adam ha is the article particle. "The Adam" is the closest we can get in English.

So in the example above it's properly rendered. Yahweh Elohim created THE Adam in his own image. He formed THE Adam from the Dust of the Red Arable Ground/Clay.


I also don't see this simply as an assonance. I think I've more than demonstrated why Adam means what it means. After several years of studying the matter, I find it obvious Adam was ruddy because he was made from red clay, just like how his name is connected to Dam or blood. Because to be Ruddy characterized in the bible is to show blood in the face i.e blush. When one blushes they turn bright red. This is why all these words have a similar root and are connected. Go look in any lexicon. It's a poetic idiom that demonstrates how the Blood Red Clay formed in the image of the creator is the beginning of the ruddy blushing people. Adam being the first. When looking at everything in context it makes complete sense.


The only reason one would have to render Adam as meaning "earthing" is to appease the religious because Adam has to be the progenitor of all people on this earth according to universal religions. Which we know is impossible and makes much more sense that Adam is simply the progenitor of a particular family tree of people who are characterized as ruddy and have a creation story that explains their origins. It takes a great deal of sophistry to bend what is plainly written in my opinion.

 

[Ygorcs]

I'm not saying Dam is the root for ground, earth or soil, but it is the root for Adamah, Adam, etc... There is already a word for earth/ground in Hebrew. It's Erets, which is used over 252 times in the book of Genesis alone and disproportionately more than Adamah when referring to land, ground, etc... through all scripture. The only true way to derive the meaning of these words is by context because these words can have multiple meanings.

Let me further elaborate why Adam was made from red clay and why he was ruddy.

On a side note: Not all theologians are honest when making inquires into the meaning of certain scriptures. While many do great work, they are usually filled with bias. They interpret these things to match their theology. Take your pick of thousands of different denominations. They think all people on earth came from Adam which is intellectually dishonest. In my honest opinion this is for the sole purpose of universalizing a belief system in order to appeal to more people for profit or they're just plain ignorant.

What's even more absurd is thinking all people on earth came from Noah and his wife.... Takes a great deal of mental gymnastics to believe this. Anyone who reads these texts with an honest inquiry will realize Adam through all scripture is about a particular family tree. That's why a great part of it is dedicated to recording a genealogy, even in the New Testament. Noah and his wife would of produced children born in their likeness. It's only through religion do they force their dogma into the meaning of somehow his children magically produced all the races of people on the earth.

I say this because once you remove the religious dogma the meaning is made abundantly clear.

This gives us further clues about the meaning and appearance of this mythical Adam figure and why I gave several examples of the descriptions of biblical figures which are described as being ruddy, which is connected to the name Adam. It's because they are recorded as being from the family tree of Adam (first ruddy man). They are a ruddy people. Two of the most prominent figures in the Bible, David and Solomon are described as ruddy. Thus it makes perfect sense they would have a creation story about the first man in their family tree as having the same appearance as themselves. So much so that it's literally connected to his name.



In the Hebrew mind the importance for blood to be connected to the name of Adam makes sense because of their belief that life was in the blood and why blood sacrifice was essential for the recompense of sin.

Leviticus 17:11


11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’


This is first illustrated when YHWH created garments for Adam and Eve when they sinned. Animals were "killed" sacrificed in order to cloth them. This concept is even taken into Christianity and the purpose of the shedding of the blood by Christ. He was the sacrificial lamb.

This is from the source you quoted. They are saying Adam comes from Dam, color of blood = Red.

"The first, most basic word is dam. Klein writes that it is "one of the few biradical nouns in Hebrew." (We've also seen delet and keshet among others.)


From dam we get adom - according to Klein meaning "the color of blood".

(note: Here he admits that Adam comes from dam. more context for the meaning of dam From Strong’s Lexicon# “H1818 ... dâm, dawm; from 1826 (compare 119 (ruddy show blood in the face); blood (as that which when shed causes death) of man or an animal; by analogy the juice of the grape; figuratively (especially in the plural) bloodshed (i.e., drops of blood)”)


Adama (ground, soil, earth, land) derives from adom - originally meaning "the red arable ground"."


Again from your same source:

7) Man. אָדָם (adam) is formed from the earth (***, adamah, thus “earthling”). In modern terms this is an assonance rather than a correct etymology. Like-sounding words were thought to hint at a special association of concepts. An English equivalent might be God fashioned a soul from soil. (note: here he's giving an example not an actual rendition.)

To correct #7 from that quote. Adam is formed from the "dust" of the earth. i.e the clay or smashed particles from the red arable land. Also he utilized the wrong Hebrew word that's used in scripture. This is actually very important. Let me illustrate. I put Adam in bold below.

Genesis 2:7-8


וייצר יהוה אלהים את-האדם עפר מן-האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים 7 ויהי האדם לנפש חיה


ויטע יהוה אלהים גן-בעדן מקדם וישם שם את-האדם אשר יצר 8


7 And the LORD God formed man (The Adam) of the dust of the ground(Red Arable Ground), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man(Adam) whom he had formed.

את = eth, - = MAQAF, ה = ha, אדם = adam


This is what is known as a “noun common masculine singular absolute”, according to the electronic program “Bible Works”. Each one of these component parts of this Hebrew word is very important to fully understand the meaning of the noun (or name). I'm pointing this out to also demonstrate that Adam and man in the Bible is the same creation and person. Gen 1 & 2 is the telling of the same creation. I can break this down verse by verse.

853. את ’êth, ayth; apparently contracted from 226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely.

226. אות ’ôwth th; probably from 225 (in the sense of appearing); a signal (literal or figurative), as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence

eth-ha Adam ha is the article particle. "The Adam" is the closest we can get in English.

So in the example above it's properly rendered. Yahweh Elohim created THE Adam in his own image. He formed THE Adam from the Dust of the Red Arable Ground/Clay.


I also don't see this simply as an assonance. I think I've more than demonstrated why Adam means what it means. After several years of studying the matter, I find it obvious Adam was ruddy because he was made from red clay, just like how his name is connected to Dam or blood. Because to be Ruddy characterized in the bible is to show blood in the face i.e blush. When one blushes they turn bright red. This is why all these words have a similar root and are connected. Go look in any lexicon. It's a poetic idiom that demonstrates how the Blood Red Clay formed in the image of the creator is the beginning of the ruddy blushing people. Adam being the first. When looking at everything in context it makes complete sense.


The only reason one would have to render Adam as meaning "earthing" is to appease the religious because Adam has to be the progenitor of all people on this earth according to universal religions. Which we know is impossible and makes much more sense that Adam is simply the progenitor of a particular family tree of people who are characterized as ruddy and have a creation story that explains their origins. It takes a great deal of sophistry to bend what is plainly written in my opinion.

Very thorough and deeply substantiated explanation, this was really a good read, thanks for your input. Now I can definitely get much better your reasons and the plausibility of the evidences you've put together.

That said, I must say I still wonder: if those Hebrews saw themselves as a particularly ruddy peolpe (i.e. light-skinned, I presume for their ability to get reddish as they blushed) that had this ruddy look as something so characteristic of them that it differentiated them from other unrelated populations/lineages, then how does that fit into the numerous and convining genetic and archaeological (e.g. paintings) evidences that light-skinned people had already been living and expanding in Europe and West Asia for thousands of years by the time of the first Hebrews proper, and that the Hebrews were certainly not the only lighter-skinned people in their "known world"?

How can we reconcile the fact that they called their first ancestor "ruddy" and supposedly saw themselves as having a ruddy white skin as their "trademark", but they apparently lived quite near to other light-skinned populations that would also have similar or even the same skin color?

In this context, why being "ruddy" would've been so special and unique, even if we assume (with no evidence, just guessing) that they were a bit lighter than others? They would still not be much lighter than other populations, especially to their north (we now have the ancient DNA to demonstrate that, though that's also pretty intuitive, the Hebrews are not that ancient that we know nothing of their world). Unless, hypothetically, the early history of Hebrews was as an immigrant ethnic group that was particularly lighter in skin pigmentation than the more southern (and darker-skinned) natives among whom they settled (maybe Egypt or Arabia?)...

 

[leperrine]

Well, we both know that the Hebrews weren't the only blushing/fair people in the world (especially if what I'm saying is correct). I've done a great deal of research into biblical history and how it overlaps secular history. Especially the classics. There is a connection. I'll provide some of that info tomorrow. I have an immense amount of research. I'll also iterate my interpretation of why this blushing ability was so rooted in their spiritual belief and answer your other questions.

I do need to get to bed

I will say the primary reason I'm so fascinated with this topic is due to my ancestry. Discovering my paternal haplogroup just a couple years ago only increased my curiosity.

I have a direct unbroken paternal ancestry that goes back to Languadoc France over 1,000 years ago. This is the earliest trace of my Perrine name, which comes from Peter or Petros/stone. More than likely my ancestors adopted this name over 1,000 years ago because they were Christian. My not so distant ancestors were Huguenots and came to America in 1665 because the Catholic Church almost killed them all off. So in a way I feel like I'm researching the history of my ancient ancestors. Being a J2 really has helped me connect some dots and gives me a connection to it all.

 

[Maleth]

Well, we both know that the Hebrews weren't the only blushing/fair people in the world (especially if what I'm saying is correct). I've done a great deal of research into biblical history and how it overlaps secular history. Especially the classics. There is a connection. I'll provide some of that info tomorrow. I have an immense amount of research. I'll also iterate my interpretation of why this blushing ability was so rooted in their spiritual belief and answer your other questions.

I do need to get to bed

I will say the primary reason I'm so fascinated with this topic is due to my ancestry. Discovering my paternal haplogroup just a couple years ago only increased my curiosity.

I have a direct unbroken paternal ancestry that goes back to Languadoc France over 1,000 years ago. This is the earliest trace of my Perrine name, which comes from Peter or Petros/stone. More than likely my ancestors adopted this name over 1,000 years ago because they were Christian. My not so distant ancestors were Huguenots and came to America in 1665 because the Catholic Church almost killed them all off. So in a way I feel like I'm researching the history of my ancient ancestors. Being a J2 really has helped me connect some dots and gives me a connection to it all.

Consider these facts:-

*) J2a would not be considered as a major haplogroup in any Jewish population (Remember Ashkenazis would have roughly a 10% European input) which are anyway more dominated by J1's (assosiated with Arabia) and E groups. Also remember that your paternal Y dna is only a very small percentage of who you are as a whole. You have many lines all the way from your Mother and Fathers Maternal lines. Your autosmal dna would have nothing to do with people coming from Cannan.

*) The written version of the Genesis came only when script was invented and was relied on oral tradition that with most probably had arrived from Mesapotamia before there was such a word to describe Jews or Hebrews.

*) The oral traditions are considered to be myths by many just as those of the aborigines or the Aztecs for that matter.

*) I doubt if Nature / God would have wanted to create ruddy people in an area where UV rays are so strong and lovingly protect them with a good dose of melanin to avoid them having an epidemy of skin cancers.

One has to put all in perspective.

 

[Ygorcs]

Also remember that your paternal Y dna is only a very small percentage of who you are as a whole. You have many lines all the way from your Mother and Fathers Maternal lines. Your autosmal dna would have nothing to do with people coming from Cannan.

I was going to say that myself. Of course Y-DNA haplogroups are relevant especially to track past population movements in a more precise way, but in terms of ancestry it really means little else but this is my most recent male ancestor who got to have only male descendants in all the generations from his to mine. Yes, one such man was one of the thousands of ancestors that collectively contributed to your ancestry, your phenotype and your family/ethnic history, but no one should over-estimate the relevance of that particular man over all the other men who simply didn't pass on their Y-DNA to us and of course the half of our ancestry that came from women (and we all know how our mothers impact our life in ways much more profound than genetics). That's especially true if the males with that particular Y-DNA lineage came into a region where they were a small minority, which is reinforced if their immigration was too male-biased. It's almost certain that their DNA will be diluted to unrecognizable levels in just a few centuries unless their community remains extremely (not just a little) endogamous (a virtually impossible hypothesis if the migration was male-biased).

 

[leperrine]

Yes, I'm aware that Haplogroups don't really contribute much to your current genetic makeup. I signified that by me discovering my haplogroup only increased my interest into the research and studies I was already conducting. Keep in mind this entire thread is about the entomology of the word Adam.

maleth, I didn't say the "ruddy people" were created in an area with intense UV radiation. You're making straw man arguments. My ancestors have been farmers for generations working in the Sun without ever getting cancer. I live in Alabama and apparently it's UV index is similar to Israel. I've lived in Djibouti Africa and Iraq for over a year in both places with no problems. To be frank, I could work harder and longer hours in the Sun than my more melanated friends. I've also spent a good bit of time in Israel while in the military without issue.

I've demonstrated very clearly what the words say. If you want to argue their meaning then by all means show me.

Since the idea of population mixing is being brought into a linguistic discussion...

What I will say is that if one is fair and ruddy and mixes with a population that doesn't share these features then their children will no longer be ruddy (for the most part). Their skin tone becomes less transparent. Can a population that was once "ruddy" that has become fully mixed with a separate population ever become fair/ruddy again? I suppose it's possible if there's enough genetic diversity in the population to produce children with these characteristics. If I'm not mistaken, aren't the genes responsible for fair skin recessive compared to those with more melanin? I would assume if a population becomes too genetically mixed with other populations it decreases the chances of them producing enough viable offspring with these physical traits to continue to future generations even though they may carry the genes.

Now, let me illustrate why I don't think it matters J2a isn't a major Ashkenazi Haplogroup. Especially when referring to ancient Hebrews. Sorry if I'm being too verbose. I feel I have to elaborate on these things for the sake of others reading this that aren't as versed in these topics.

To be a Hebrew doesn't necessarily mean to be Jewish. Especially from the Biblical definition. So analyzing Jewish Y Haplogroups I think won't yield much results in my opinion. Not only that, Ones Jewishness is determined from the mother. Ancient Israelite's were a patriarchal society. Might be interesting to look at mtDNA studies on the Jewish population.

Not everyone descended from Adam is a Hebrew. Not all Hebrews are Shemites. not all Shemites are Israelites. Not all Israelites are Judeans/Judahites/Jews... It's all a matter of semantics.


“Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew an ‘Israelite’ or a ‘Hebrew.’” (Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins, eds., “Identity Crisis,” The Jewish Almanac, (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1980) p. 3.)


Regardless of what you think, the most accurate versions of the texts available dealing with biblical personalities describe themselves as being ruddy. Don't think Ruddy people lived in the Middle east or Levant? Go look at all the ancient mosaics they've been unearthing and see for yourself.


I also think there is massive confusion due to defining what Semitic or Jew even means. Semitic in modern times primarily refers to anyone who is Jewish. Biblically it meant you were a descendant of the patriarch Shem. Shem's line is what gave us Jacob whose name was later changed to Israel. It's where we get the name Israel btw.

The word Jew today specifically applies to a certain group of people whether they practice Judaism or not. Biblically the word "Jew" can mean several different things depending on it's context. The current understanding of the meaning of Jew and Gentile comes from the Talmud which has effected many English translations of the Bible and our current understanding of these terms. Funny enough Judaism isn't the same religion practiced my the ancient Hebrews. Just spend some time reading the Talmud and Kabbalah and you'll see what I mean.


3 examples of how the word "Jew" can be translated in the Bible.


Judean - someone living in Judea
Judea - geographic location
Judahite - descendant of Judah


Another example of an erroneous translation from the Talmud is the word Goy.


Goy just means nation. Abraham was the father of many goy. It's the same word as Gentile. It just means nation. Gentile doesn't mean non Jew even though Judaism persists on it.


Identification of biblical figures is mostly the result of Judeo, Evangelical Christianity and the influence of Talmudic Judaism. Many of these modern concepts and definitions are fairly new when considering the histories proper translations. Currently I think most Jews are Iduemeans mixed with other peoples... Herod in the Bible was an Iduemean aka Edomite. Many ancient Christians claimed to be descendants of Israel and this concept is fully demonstrated in the New Testament. Especially through the Apostle Paul's writings. I'll demonstrate that in a separate post. I've actually wrote a very lengthy study demonstrating that there was a great struggle in antiquity of the Identity of who were descendants of Israel. This was one of the primary reasons of the hatred between Christians and Jews. I think if the histories are true, that a majority of the people once known as Israelite's actually became Christians. If there's any validity to these histories.


Also here's some context on the Ashkenazi Jews and the History of Ancient Judea leading up to the time of Christ and why there was so much intensity between Jews and Christians.


Ashkenaz, however, is more easily identified. Mentioned at Jeremiah 51:27 along with Ararat and Minni (both part of modern Armenia), Ashkenaz is there shown to be not far from the ancient land of the Khazars, once a great empire, and of which modern Kazakhstan is a remnant. In the first millennium [AD] many of the Edomites and other Canaanites who had adopted Judaism migrated to Khazaria, and the Khazars, beginning with their king, had converted to Judaism. The jews being absorbed into the general population, these people adopted the name Ashkenaz, or “Ashkenazi jews”, for Ashkenaz was recognized [by these jews] as an ancestor of the original population of the area.


Ashkenaz did become a mixed group. Jews moved there and the Mongol invasions surely played a part. Thus the Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of these peoples.


Under King Bulan the entire nation converted to Judaism in 740 AD.


In my research the Jewish People are Iduemeans (Edomites) that came to dominate Judea via the Herodian dynasty. After Rome destroyed the temple in 70 AD groups of these Iduemeans now known as Jews fled to Khazaria. The Khazars opened their arms to the Jews.


"Though the Jews were everywhere a subject people, and in much of the world persecuted as well, Khazaria was the one place in the medieval world where the Jews actually were their own masters.... To the oppressed Jews of the world, the Khazars were a source of pride and hope, for their existence seemed to prove that God had not completely abandoned His people."


- Raymond Scheindlin, in The Chronicles of the Jewish People (1996)


There was a difference between Judeans and Iduemens. They were two distinct peoples occupying the same area because John Hrycanus conquered the Idumeans and allowed them to convert to their Religion and eventually these Idumeans took control of Judea until Rome crushed them in 70 AD.


By the time of Christ, most of the ancient people once known as Israelite's were not in Judea anymore. Via Babylonian and Assyrian conquests. Only a remnant of Judeans are in the land by this time.


Jewish roots could be around Palestine. They do come from Idumea(south of Palestine) in my opinion. Idumea comes from Edom. The biblical Esau (Twin of Jacob) who married Hittite and Canaanite wives whom Israel was supposed to drive out of the Land but never completed the task.


Esau's Descendants


36 These are the generations of Esau (that is, Edom). 2 Esau took his wives from the Canaanites: Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, Oholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter[a] of Zibeon the Hivite, 3 and Basemath, Ishmael's daughter, the sister of Nebaioth. 4 And Adah bore to Esau, Eliphaz; Basemath bore Reuel; 5 and Oholibamah bore Jeush, Jalam, and Korah. These are the sons of Esau who were born to him in the land of Canaan.


6 Then Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the members of his household, his livestock, all his beasts, and all his property that he had acquired in the land of Canaan. He went into a land away from his brother Jacob. 7 For their possessions were too great for them to dwell together. The land of their sojournings could not support them because of their livestock. 8 So Esau settled in the hill country of Seir. (Esau is Edom.)


Antipater I the Idumaean /ænˈtɪpətər/ (died 43 BC) was the founder of the Herodian Dynasty and father of Herod the Great. According to Josephus, he was the son of Antipas (I) and had formerly held that name.


Around 60 b.c. The Roman Triumvirate Pompey brought Judea under Roman Rule. He pushed all the Judeans into the areas of Gallilee, Jericho and Jerusalem. Then he settled Greeks and Syrians in the rest of the land of Palestine. Originally, Galilee was settled by the tribe of Benjamin.


A few years earlier, Hyranicus, a descendant of the Maccabees, conquered the land of Idumea. Idumea was the home land of the Edomites. He forced all the Edomites to be circumcised and follow the Judean laws.


The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1903 edition, says under the heading Edom,


They were then incorporated with the Judean(Jewish) nation, and their country was called by the Greeks and Romans “Idumea” . . . From this time the Idumeans ceased to be a separate nation, though the name “Idumea” still existed (in) the time of Jerome.


The Edomites were the descendants of Esau. Esau married into the families of the Canaanites. The Canaanites were the people that God told Moses and the Israelites to drive out of the land of Canaan. They were warned never to mix or marry with the Canaanites. God gave Edom the land south of Judea. They were driven westward by the Natabeans to the area that became Idumea. Their border was only 19 miles from Jerusalem.


Flavus Josephus who lived from 37 A.D., to 100 A.D. Confirms Edomite occupation in southern Judea.


“That country is also called Judea, and the people Jews; and this name is given also to as many as embrace their religion (Judaism), though of other nations. But then upon what foundation so good a governor as Hyrcanus (grandson of Mattathias patriarch of the Maccabees, a family of Judahite patriots of 2nd and 1st centuries B.C.) Took upon himself to compel these Idumeans (Edomites) either to become Jews or to leave their country, deserves great consideration.


So the land of Palestine at the time of the Messiah was similar to the U.S. It was very diverse with many nationalities. The word “Jews” in scripture refers to the inhabitants of the land. But it can also mean the tribe of Judah in some cases. The name for the land of Palestine was called Judea because they combined the name Judah and Idumea.


Now at the time of the Messiah, the Sadducees were in control of the temple. Pharisees were the synagogue leaders. According to the Ency. Britannica and Philo, there were 6,000 Pharisees during the time of the Messiah.


Some had to be non-Judeans and Edomites. When Herod came to power, he solidified his position by bringing in relatives from Idumea and appointing many non-Judeans to important positions. And he killed the entire Sanhedrin except Hillel and Shammai. Herod was practicing Judaism, as many Edomites and Nabateans had been commingled with the Judeans and adopted their customs.


“Herod I”. Encyclopaedia Judaica. (CD-ROM Edition Version 1.0). Ed. Cecil Roth. Keter Publishing House. ISBN 965-07-0665-8


Notice the scriptures below. The Edomites were called the Herodians in scripture and were politically aligned with Herod. They plotted with the Pharisees to kill Christ whom was said to be a true descendant of Judah. Thus being the rightful ruler.


Mat_22:16 And they send to him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men.


Mar_3:6 And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.


Mar_12:13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might catch him in talk.
The Bible also proofs that some of the Pharisees were Edomites. Notice the verse below:


Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?


The Pharisees told the Messiah that they had never gone into bondage. This could only apply to the Edomites because the tribe of Judah was taken into captivity in 585 BC by Babylon.


In my opinion the true Judeans of Judah and the other tribes of Israel converted to Christianity while the Edomites continued developing their religion of Judaism which was called the "Traditions of Men" which later became the Talmud.


by the time of 70ad most Christians had left Judea (taking the advice of Christ) when Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.


I think the descendants of Idumeans today are now known as Jews.


The Jews that came to Khazaria are now known as Ashkenazi Jews. which makes up the majority of the Jewish population.

I write all this simply to demonstrate that identifying the ancient Israelite's isn't as simple as saying they were Jews. Controversy has surrounded this topic for thousands of years and it's still causing much chaos in the world today.

 

[leperrine]

Now I'm about to get pretty deep in scripture and many will find this very controversial or confusing. I'm not writing this to appease to any religious group. I'm just sharing my understanding. I'll do my best to keep it brief. I'm sharing this to continue the idea on why ancient Christians saw themselves as being connected to Israel. I promise I'm not trying to write a sermon. I'm simply communicating the thoughts expressed in these older texts. This is also why I think this was never meant to be a Universal Religion.

The teachings of Christianity for the most part in my opinion have been corrupted. I think the entire Christian faith was created for one family tree. It was never meant to be a Universal Religion. That's how I interpret it anyways. I can demonstrate that utilizing the Scriptures and the nature of the Covenants in the Old Testament.


I'll try and layout for you what the scriptures say about who Jesus is according to these ancient Christians and the purpose of his manifestation.


Yahshua(Jesus) is Yahweh(God of the Bible) come in the flesh to redeem his bride Israel. He had to die in order to remarry his bride according to his own laws. Sounds crazy, but stick with me.


Why Yahshua (Jesus) Was Yahweh in The Flesh and Why Yahweh had to Manifest in the Flesh according to His own Laws (Torah).




Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am YAHWEH, and besides Me there is no savior


THEME
Yahweh marries Israel
Yahweh Divorces Israel
Yahweh says he will marry Israel Again
Only way this is possible is for Yahweh to die
Yahweh manifests in the Flesh as Yahshua
Dies
Comes back to life and now is legally allowed to enter a covenant with his children again like he promised them he would do...


Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:


Christ then tells the disciples to only go to the lost tribes of Israel. This is so they can hear the Good news! This fulfills the prophecy in Hosea


Romans 9:25 As he saith also in Hosea, I will call that my people, which was not my people; And her beloved, that was not beloved.


The reason they would be called not his people is because Yahweh divorced them... But now they can remarry Yahweh again... This is the Good news.


Guess who the epistles are written to? All the gospels were written to the lost tribes...


They were of the faith.. Of the faith is to be the seed of Abraham... His literal descendants Yahweh promised him.. Refer back to the covenant Yahweh made with Abraham for further context.


Israel = Jacob = Tribes = Church = Bride of Christ = Lost Sheep = Children of Yahweh

MARRIAGE COVENANT


Exodus 19:5-11 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. 7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. 8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto Yahweh. 9 And Yahweh said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto Yahweh. 10 And Yahweh said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, 11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day Yahweh will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.


For the next several chapters the laws are given which Israel must follow as their part in the agreement. Then in Exodus chapter 24 we see this:


Exodus 24:3-8 3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do. 4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD. 6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.


There is more to the story, but this is basically the marriage ceremony of Yahweh and Israel as a nation.


Once the children of Israel adopted the customs of the surrounding Canaanite nations, broke the law, and began practicing paganism, they were found to be adulterers by Yahweh, the husband of the nation.




PUNISHMENT FOR ADULTERY


Here is what the Law says of adulterers:


Leviticus 20:10 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


Deuteronomy 22:22 22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.


So we see that Israel, the wife, had committed a crime worthy of death. In their entirety, they as a nation deserved to die. This is the reason why prophecies such as that found at Jeremiah chapter 31:


Jeremiah 31:31-38 31 Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith Yahweh: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith Yahweh, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Yahweh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. 35 Thus saith Yahweh, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: 36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. 37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.


While Israel deserved death under the law, we see that Yahweh promised that Israel would certainly not die, but rather would be a nation forever. There is only one way that this could be done without Yahweh's being a hypocrite and breaking His Own law: He himself had to die in order to free Israel from the law! This is why Christ professed that He came to "fulfill the law"! Paul explains this very thing in Romans chapter 7:


Romans 7:1-4 KJV: 1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.


DIVORCE/PUT AWAY


The word "divorce" appears once in the King James Version of the Bible, at Jeremiah 3:8. In the KJV the word "divorcement" appears 3 times in the Old Testament, and 3 times in the New. The Hebrew word for both divorce and divorcement is always Strong's #3748, keriythuwth, and its primary meaning is only a cutting. It is a noun formed from the word at Strong's # 3772, karath, a verb which means to cut, and it is used of covenants and contracts as well as of the cutting down of trees or other things. It is not a special legal term and bears no such connotation. In the Greek the word translated "divorcement" in the King James comes from the word apostasion, a noun which means a repudiation. Neither does this word have any special legal significance. A "bill of divorcement" is really only a written statement of repudiation. The law, found in Deuteronomy 24:1 and 3, required such a written statement be provided by a husband to a wife in order to protect the outcast wife so that she may seek shelter in the homes of others without fear of being accused of adultery and stoned. No man would take a woman in who had no such paper, for fear of being stoned. So we see that none of this has anything to do with any formal court decree. An outcast woman is a divorced woman, and the paper was only a formality the husband was required to give in order to protect the outcast woman. But the act of casting her out, called "putting away" in scripture, that was the actual act of divorce.


The word "divorced" appears four times in Scripture, three of them in the Old Testament. But in the Hebrew it does not come from the word keriythuwth, a cutting. Rather it comes from Strong's # 1644, garash, which means "to drive out from a possession; especially to expatriate or divorce". Therefore "to drive out" is to divorce. This same word was translated "put away", "expel", and "thrust out" elsewhere in the KJV. In the New Testament the word "divorced" only appears at Matthew 5:32, and there it is the word apollumi, the very same word which was translated "lost" every time it described the sheep of Israel. So there is no real difference between "lost", "put away", and "divorced" concerning Israel and Scripture.


Both Israel and Judah were divorced! Here are the supporting Scriptures:


As Jeremiah 33:24 states thusly: "Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which Yahweh hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them." And then Zechariah 10:6: "And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the LORD their God, and will hear them."


Ezekiel 23 "So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister." In Brenton's Septuagint, the reading is "And she exposed her fornication, and exposed her shame: and my soul was alienated from her, even as my soul was alienated from her sister." The Greek word translated "alienated" here is the verb, aphistami. The same word of which the noun form apostasion is translated "divorce"! Judah was indeed divorced by Yahweh, as well as Israel. Is there any doubt now? Russell Walker, Stephen E. Jones, and all of their followers are little but fools to think otherwise.


If there was a new covenant to be made with Israel and Judah, and Judah was NOT divorced, why is there a need for a new covenant with Judah as well as Israel? If Judah was not divorced, Judah would still be under the Old Covenant! It should be manifest, that all of this stems from the confusion of those who identify Judah with the jews. Rather, it is the remnant which was not divorced, and while that remnant consisted mostly of Judah, there were some Israelites in it also. Even long after Israel had been taken away by the Assyrians, 2 Chronicles chapter 30 mentions "all Israel and Judah ... and he will return to the remnant of you, that are escaped out of the hand of the kings of Assyria", and 2 Chronicles chapter 34 mentions "all the remnant of Israel, and all of Judah and Benjamin".


word study on Isaiah 6


"Yet a tenth will return to be kindled: a pillar of oak, in order to be a monument. Because of their felling the holy seed will be a monument." Translated correctly it is a good cross-reference for Romans 11:12. This passage and many others like it are talking about a remnant of Israel to be left in the land. For instance, 2 Kings 19:30 states that "the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall yet again take root downward, and bear fruit upward". Of course this is talking about Judah.


Both Israel and Judah were divorced, the "two families" which Yahweh had put away. The remnant was not divorced, because they were still there in the land they were not put away. This is why they were accepted by Christ: they stayed in the law and in the Old Covenant until He fulfilled them. With one illustration we can make this distinction: that Anna, of the tribe of Asher, had remained in the temple and was a prophetess!


According to the Bible, Israel - including most of Judah - had lost their identity almost entirely by the time of Christ. With Christianity, the true Judahites in Judaea would lose their identity as Judaeans, and become Christians.

NEW COVENANT


Deuteronomy 24:3-4 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.


Here we see that there is no way that a divorced wife can return to the husband once she has another. But if the husband should die, the wife can marry another without worry. As Paul explains in Romans 7, Yahweh died in Christ, freeing Israel from the law. Christ asserted at John 10:11, 15 & 17. He died and was resurrected so that He could keep Israel, in spite of Israel's sin, while at the same time keeping the letter of the law!


The Scriptures say that Yahshua is indeed Yahweh in many places. Here we shall see it in the context of the marriage relationship:


Isaiah 54:5: "For thy Maker is thine husband; Yahweh of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called."


Yahweh is the husband AND redeemer: Yahshua Christ.


Hosea 2:7: "And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now."


Hosea 2 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.


Hosea proves that Israel is returning to Yahweh as the husband, which can only be Christ. that is what the Wedding Supper of the Lamb in the Revelation is all about. That is why John the Baptist referred to Christ as the bridegroom, and Christ referred to Himself as the bridegroom. For these same reasons Paul said to the Corinthians:


2 Corinthians 11:2 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.


The return of Israel to Christ is a betrothal.

Here's some passages for dramatic effect that illustrates the animosity in Judea at the time according to the New Testament.

Matthew 15:12-13


12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?


13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.


John 8:39-46 Jesus speaking to the Scribes and Pharisees.


39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.


40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.


41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.


42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.


43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.


44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.


46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?




Matthew 23: 29-35


29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,


30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.


31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.


32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.


33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?


34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:


35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

As you can tell it get's pretty heated.

I thought all this information would help shed light on why I think identifying who these ancient Hebrews/Israelite's are is a bit murky. Basically it's a very in depth answer to maleths statement about the supposed haplogroups of ancient Israel.