Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
The Puzzler

Did the Jews come from India?

27 posts in this topic

Aristotle believed that the Jews came from India, where he said that they were known as the Kalani.

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

Could the Jewish people have come from India? The hook noses in both cultures are a bit of a give away to me.

Also, the men from the East who came into Sumer and started building the Tower to God, must have spoken the same language as the people already there, because God thinks their ability to all communicate is a threat.

The Jewish religion might be tied into the IVC, where they find no conclusive evidence of palaces, temples or the like.

The priest King of India statue is the only thing that says they may have had a preistly caste too. He wears the Sun symbol on his headband. Monotheism is tied into the worship of the Sun as the only God, like the Aten.

If not, why would Aristotle say such an outright statement?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DNA evidence says "No"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god your right!

indian%20jew3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god your right!

indian%20jew3.jpg

Well, that would be Aristotle was right, not me.

DNA evidence says "No"

What haplogroup would a Brahmin of 2000BC be then?

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hebrews And Vedic Brahmins

Dr. Samar Abbas, Aligarh, India

EDITORIAL, Jul 14 (VNN) A Review

In 1979 the Oriental Institute at Baroda published a paper entitled "The Hebrews belong to a branch of Vedic Aryans." This was a follow-up to a previous article on the same topic published by the same author, Prof. Madan Mohan Shukla, in the Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal in 1976. The basic thesis of these papers is that the Hebrews represent an offshoot of Vedic Brahmins. It may be instructive to review Shukla's papers as they serve to illustrate the common origin of the Jews and Brahmins. As Shukla's papers are very difficult to obtain both within and outside India, and are virtually out of reach for laypersons, I am reproducing extensive tracts from them for reference purposes.

1. VOCABULARY

One of Shukla's strong points is the considerable vocabulary shared by Hebrew and Sanskrit. Indeed, M.M. Shukla has concentrated on providing a large list of of words which are common to Hebrew and Sanskrit. Thus, he provides the following examples:

"The word, 'Svah' means 'heaven' or 'paradise' in Sanskrit. This word, written as 'svam' may assume the form, 'Sam-yim' which means, 'sky' and/or 'heaven' in Hebrew, while it may become 'Asvah' under the influence of the principle of vowelization. Sometimes, the sound 'a' may change to 'ya' and thus, the derivation, 'Asvah' or 'Asuah' may change to 'Yasuah' which is nearer to a Hebrew word, 'Yasuah' (salvation).... It may be mentioned that 'Appa' is a Marathi word. The derivation 'Appa' may further change to 'Abba', which is a Hebrew word... Now let us consider the root - word 'Svas'. It may change first to 'Vas' and thence to Bas or 'Bes' which is a Hebrew word though with different meaning, ie. 'daughter'." (Shukla 1979, p.45)

He also suggests that Surios gave rise to Kurios, or Kur (ibid., p.48) Shukla notes that 'Abru' and 'Uparohita' exist in Persian and Avadhi Hindi, distinct from Skt. bhru and purohita (Shukla 1979, p.44)

Describing the process of vowelization, he notes, "the Punjabis would pronounce the words station, putra and Krsna as satation, puttar, and Kishan respectively." (Shukla 1976, p.41)

Building upon this, he writes, "the word Joasava may be transformed into Joasaph, from which the derivation of the word Joseph is a simple matter. Thus we can see that the Biblical name Joseph can be derived from an ancient Indian name, jayasva." (Shukla 1976, p.42)

Continuing in this line, he notes, "Adam. This word seems to have been derived from the Sanskrit word A-dityam, from the Vedic pronunciation of this word as A-ditiam." (Shukla 1976, p.45)

In addition, "The meaning of the root-word as in Sanskrit is 'to eat', and 'to enjoy' or 'to be merry'. Hence if we pronounce the term upasana as 'upasana', then it would mean, 'Eating before God', and 'Being merry before God.'" (Shukla 1976, p.46)

Another striking similarity exists with regard to script: "Now, the Hebrew script, like those of Arabic and Kaithi, does not use the word signs to indicate the pronunciation of its consonants." (Shukla 1976, p.44).

2. PRIESTHOOD

One of the strongest points for a common Brahmin-Jewish origin is the fact that in both communities have been endogamous priests from the earliest times of their recorded history: "Chosen People of God: It may also be observed in this respect that the Hebrews, as well as their Indian counterparts, Brahmins, consider themselves as the "Chosen People of God". The Hebrews started their corporate career in history as a "Kingdom of Priests" (Exodus/19/6). Likewise, the Brahmins have also been a "Community of Priests" since the dawn of their history." (Shukla 1979, p.54)

The colonialists were the first to notice the similarity between Brahmins and Jews, namely that Brahma not only corresponds with Abraham, but that his consort Sarasvati corresponds to Sarah. Shukla also notes the story in Genesis 29, 32-33, 20/12.

http://veda.harekrsn...ic-Brahmins.php

Continued:

3. BIBLICAL FIGURES

Citing his own work 'The Holy Bible - A Source book of Ancient Indian History', a paper submitted to All Indian Oriental Conference (1976) held at Dharwar, he notes that "We have already tried to equate Brahma, Sarasvati, Manu and Bali with the Biblical Abraham, Sarai, Noah and Peleg." (Shukla 1979, p.53) Not only that, but Shukla holds that the Jewish Laban and Brahmanic Lavana coincide:

"It is noteworthy to note in the above context that the sister of Lavana on the Indian side becomes the daughter of Laban in the Biblical account. It may also be mentioned in this respect that while Sarasvati is said to be the daughter of Brahma in accordance with the Indian tradition, her Biblical counterpart, Sarai, has been described as the sister of Abraham. In this context, we would like to remind our readers of a previous discussion of 'Svas', the root-word of the Sanskrit 'svasar' (sister) which becomes 'Bes' to mean 'daughter' in the Hebrew language." (Shukla 1979, p.54)

Equally striking is Shukla's derivation of 'Mary' from 'Matri': "the words 'Mary' and 'Mariam' could be derived from a Sanskrit word, matr, meaning 'mother'." (Shukla 1976, p.42)

"Similarly the word, 'Mari' or 'Mary' may also be derived from Sanskrit 'Matri'." [and Shukla notes that Mary is worshipped as a mother goddess.]... "The word Adam is derived from a Hebrew word, 'Adamah' which means 'the earth'. Similarly the Skt. 'Adityam' is derived from 'Aditi' which also means the Earth. Hence the primary meaning of both the words, 'Adam' and Adityam would be 'earthly one'. (Shukla 1979, p.47)

His papers provide detailed etymologies of the word 'Abraham':

"The word 'Adam' can also be derived from Sanskrit 'Adityam' with the help of the rule of haplology also. Haplology is the name given by Bloomfield to the phenomenon where of the two similar syllables following each other, one is dropped. The word 'Adityam' will change to 'Adam' under the influence of this rule in the following way: -

Adityam -> Adatam -> Adadam (t -> d) -> Adam (Haplology)

It would be interesting to note here that the Sanskrit 'Adityam', represented by the same rule would change to 'Aton':

Adityan -> Aditan -> Atadan (d -> t) -> Atan ->: Aten /Aton (Shukla 1979, p.48) This is interesting, for it provides an Indo-European derivation for the Egyptian God Aton.

Moreover, "the Vayu Purana mentions Manu as Bharata" (Shukla 1979, p.56)

Intriguing is Shukla's derivation of Rcam: "We may consider another Sanskrit word, 'Rcam' which may become Arcam and then 'Aleichem' (r -> l) which is a Hebrew word." (Shukla 1979, p.46)

Shukla also provides certain other etymologies, and repeatedly derives Adam from Adityam, and Mary from Matr (Shukla 1979, p.46) He also postulates a derivation of Gr. Adonis from Aton, and notes that Heb Adonay -> Lord. (ibid., p.48).

"It can be shown that the Hebrew word, 'Elohim' can be derived from the Skt. 'Brahma':

Brahma -> Ibrahim (rule of vowelization) -> Ibrahim (rule of stress) - > Ilohim (r -> l) -> Elohim

Hence the expression 'Adonay Elohim; becomes equivalent to the Skt. 'Aditya-Brahma'." (Shukla 1979, p.48)

Furthermore, he notes, "Savitr -> Savitru (r -> ru) -> Sabiru (v -> B) -> Habitru (s -> h)" -> Habiru -> Habiru -> PR Egyptian, Apiru, Ibru, Ibri, Ibrin." (Shukla 1979, p.51)

Another etymology is: (Shukla 1979, p.53)

Iksvaku -> Issvahu (no k) -> Issahu (va -> a) -> Ishak, Isaac.

Further, Shukla writes, "It may also be mentioned here that Satarupa, the name of the daughter-wife of Manu, is also one of the names of the daughter-consort of Brahma" (Shukla 1979, p.53) From this we may note the case of Noah's daughters and Manu, the flood survivor.

Another interesting derivation is also supplied: "Krsna -> Christ. We know that the Bengali pronounciation of the word Kr.s.n.a is Kriste. 'Christo' or 'Christ' is only a matter of spelling." (Shukla 1976, p.42)

Moreover, "Yehasua has been derived from a Sanskrit word, Yasasva." (Shukla 1976, p.42)

It would also appear that Jehova is also related to a Sanskrit word: "This word [Jehova] could, however, be equated with the Vedic word jahvuh, which may be considered, grammatically, both as an adjective and a proper noun. In the former sense, the word, jahv.uh has been used at least four times in the R.gveda. Thus, it has been used as an {p.44} attribute of Lord Agni (RV 3.1.12), as an attribute of Lord Indra (RV 8.13.24), as an attribute of Lord Soma (RV 9.75.1) and as an attribute of Lord Agni (RV 10.110.3)."

http://veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Hebrews-and-Vedic-Brahmins.php

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aristotle believed that the Jews came from India, where he said that they were known as the Kalani.

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

Could the Jewish people have come from India? The hook noses in both cultures are a bit of a give away to me.

Also, the men from the East who came into Sumer and started building the Tower to God, must have spoken the same language as the people already there, because God thinks their ability to all communicate is a threat.

The Jewish religion might be tied into the IVC, where they find no conclusive evidence of palaces, temples or the like.

The priest King of India statue is the only thing that says they may have had a preistly caste too. He wears the Sun symbol on his headband. Monotheism is tied into the worship of the Sun as the only God, like the Aten.

If not, why would Aristotle say such an outright statement?

I personally think they did. You might research Flavius' account in his history of the Jews which states that the Jewish people were descended from Indian brahmins, who were Brahma-devotees; the name, he says, was later corrupted to "Abraham" (intriguingly, Ab-brahma means literally "Father Brahma" in Sanskrit). If I recall, there are records of the same in both Greek and Persian sources as well, though I can't recall their names, off-hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shalom bro, I guess not or they would have a curry shop on every corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe thats the reason why Hitler at one point turn against Gypsies. Maybe he thought that they are Jewish spies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think they did. You might research Flavius' account in his history of the Jews which states that the Jewish people were descended from Indian brahmins, who were Brahma-devotees; the name, he says, was later corrupted to "Abraham" (intriguingly, Ab-brahma means literally "Father Brahma" in Sanskrit). If I recall, there are records of the same in both Greek and Persian sources as well, though I can't recall their names, off-hand.

This is the part you refer to, I think: (which is what Wiki utilises in saying Aristotle said the Jews came from India) I'm not sure of the mention of Abraham as you said though I have frequently read elsewhere of the name connection of Abraham to Brahmin and Sarah being Sarai, who is said to be Sarasvati.

As the Greek who most impressed his influence upon the development of the Jewish mind, Aristotle is one of the few Gentiles with whom Jewish legend concerns itself. Some 200 years B.C., the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus, made the positive assertion that Jewish revelation and Aristotelian philosophy were identical. Hardly had 200 years elapsed before this opinion was modified to such an extent that it was claimed that Aristotle derived his doctrine directly from Judaism. Josephus on this point says ("Contra Apionem," ii. 17): "I do not now explain how these notions of God are the sentiments of the wisest among the Grecians, and how they were reared upon the principles that he [Moses] afforded them." Of Aristotle himself Josephus has preserved ("Contra Apionem," i. 22) a very interesting passage from the writings of Clearchus, the pupil of Aristotle, the authenticity of which is maintained by such authorities as Lobeck, Bernays, von Gutschmid ("Kleine Schriften," iv. 578), and Theo. Reinach ("Textes d'Auteurs Grecs et Romains Relatifs au Judaisme," 1895, pp. 10-12). This passage, prefaced by the remark of Josephus, is as follows:

"In his first book on Sleep he relates of Aristotle, his master, that he had a discourse with a Jew; and his own account was that what this Jew said merited admiration and showed philosophicalerudition. To speak of the race first, the man was a Jew by birth and came from Cœlesyria [Palestine]. These Jews are derived from the philosophers of India. In India the philosophers call themselves Kalani, and in Syria Jews, taking their name from the country they inhabit, which is Judea; the name of their capital is rather difficult to pronounce: they call it Jerusalem. Now this man, who had been the guest of many people, had come down from the highland to the seashore [Pergamus]. He was a Greek not only in language, but in soul; so much so that, when we happened to be in Asia in about the same places whither he came, he conversed with us and with other persons of learning in order to test our wisdom. And as he had had intercourse with a large number of sages, he imparted to us more knowledge of his own."

http://www.jewishenc...n-jewish-legend

Edited by The Puzzler
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to genome research http://genome.cshlp.org/content/13/10/2277.full you may be correct. But whether or not the Jews came from India, but it would have been only after coming from Africa in the first place, which was what my earlier post meant.

"India has served as a major corridor for the dispersal of modern humans (Cann 2001). The date of entry of modern humans into India remains uncertain. By the middle Paleolithic period (50,000-20,000 years before present [ybp]), humans appear to have spread to many parts of India (Misra 1992). The migration routes of modern humans into India remain enigmatic, and whether there were also returns to Africa from India/Asia is unclear (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Roychoudhury et al. 2001; Cruciani et al. 2002)."

I itallicised the part showing you might be correct.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to genome research http://genome.cshlp....13/10/2277.full you may be correct. But whether or not the Jews came from India, but it would have been only after coming from Africa in the first place, which was what my earlier post meant.

"India has served as a major corridor for the dispersal of modern humans (Cann 2001). The date of entry of modern humans into India remains uncertain. By the middle Paleolithic period (50,000-20,000 years before present [ybp]), humans appear to have spread to many parts of India (Misra 1992). The migration routes of modern humans into India remain enigmatic, and whether there were also returns to Africa from India/Asia is unclear (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Roychoudhury et al. 2001; Cruciani et al. 2002)."

I itallicised the part showing you might be correct.

Thanks, I'll read the articles further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jews don't all have black hair and brown eyes like Indians. Actually, it has been genetically proven that most Jews are descendants of the Canaanites. That's who the original Jews were, Canaanites. The Torah version of Jewish history, Abraham and Moses etc, are a fabrication based on myths of other peoples like the Egyptians, Babylonians and Mesopotamians. King Sargon was said to have been put in a basket in a river and rescued by a lady. The Jews really being Canaanites explains why they called their god El and why their festivals are based on Canaanite festivals. The Jews didn't conquer the Canaanites, they WERE the Canaanites. They just fractured into one sect that wanted to reduce the pantheon to El alone and the normal Canaanites who liked the 70 gods. The El alone sect apparently killed the other sect.

The Exodus is a complete myth and the crossing of the Red Sea is based on the Egyptian myth of Mises. Interestingly, since so many Jews have Canaanite blood, you could say that they have returned home but now they call it "Israel" (triumphant with El).

Edited by GS1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lingusitcally, Prof. Madan Mohan Shukla plays Link-a-Lingua or Lego-Linguistics just like Puzzler does.

His theories are not accepted by Proper Linguists.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lingusitcally, Prof. Madan Mohan Shukla plays Link-a-Lingua or Lego-Linguistics just like Puzzler does.

His theories are not accepted by Proper Linguists.

These are the 'proper linguists' that make up fake words they call *proto because they can't figure it out any other way I gather you speak of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering migration patterns, it's an interesting thought (though not proven). For instance there is ample proof that early Baltic people migrated from Europe, via a round-about route to the India region, and then back to the Baltic Sea area.

However, don't ask me for source-references, please. Experts in this field should be able to supply such evidence, imo.

Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were a fact then that could be a good explanation for the total absence of Jewish traces in Israel and Egypt until the last millennium BC.

But there is no evidence for that theory either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some more of this article, for interest:

5. CUSTOMS

Describing the strength of his evidence, Shukla notes, "Sometimes, these evidences become so strong as may lead one to suspect that the Hebrews might have really been an offshoot of Vedic Aryans." (Shukla 1976, p.41)

Some of his strong evidence relates to common customs:

"It may also be mentioned here that like a devout Jew, a devout Hindu is also required to pray three times a day, morning, afternoon and evening (traikalika-sandhya).

To cite still another similarity in religious practices between the Hindus and the Jews, Hayyim Schauss notes in his Jewish Festivals, p.64: "When all is ready, the Samaritans form groups about the {p.47} sacrificial animals, and after uttering the prescribed blessings, fall upon the roast meat, pulling it hastily to pieces with their hands. Portions are brought to the women and children in the tents. Everybody eats rapidly and in twenty minutes all that is left is a mound of bones."

Here it is worthwhile to note: (a) Though turned largely vegetarians now, the Brahmins of India present almost similar scenes of eating hastily in their religious and ritual grand-feasts.

(B) Like Hebrews, the Hindu womenfolk also sit in seclusion to eat their share in their public feasts.

© Any person, who eats too rapidly (hurridly, impatiently), or too much, is called a 'haboru' in the Hindi language, particularly in the Avadhi dialect... The resemblance between the words Hebrew and Haboru is particulary striking" (Shukla 1976, p.46-47) "there is a strong case to suspect or speculate that either the Hebrews really belong to a branch of Vedic Aryans, or that they had been in direct touch with the latter at some remote and unrecorded period of their history." (Shukla 1876, p.47)

6. ANTHROPOLOGY

Citing evidence from anthropology for his thesis, Shukla notes:

"The above discussion also leads us to the conclusion that the term 'Bharatavarsa' (-> India) actually means 'the land of the Hebrews', a conclusion which is fully supported by the observation of Prof. S.K. Chatterji that, "the third Mediterranean strain, the so-called 'Oriental' one, commonly miscalled the Semitic or Jewish, with a pronouncedly long nose and fair in skin, is found in the Punjab, in Sind, in Rajputana and in Western UP, and .... in other parts of India" [R.C. Majumdar, ed. Vedic Age, 1965, p.145-6]" (Shukla 1979, p.57)

To this we may add the brachycephaly common to both Jews and Brahmins.

http://veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Hebrews-and-Vedic-Brahmins.php

I must say, the nose was something that stood out to me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were a fact then that could be a good explanation for the total absence of Jewish traces in Israel and Egypt until the last millennium BC.

But there is no evidence for that theory either.

That's a good point actually. I don't know how many times it's been rammed down throats here that there is no early evidence for them in the mentioned places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the 'proper linguists' that make up fake words they call *proto because they can't figure it out any other way I gather you speak of?

Exactly, thought those words are far from "fake". At least they don't think that a few items of vocabulary can prove linguistic relation. Based on that, Nahuatl and English are related, because they share words like chocolate, avocado, coyote, shack and much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What haplogroup would a Brahmin of 2000BC be then?

Considering that Jews are Canaanite in origin, they would be Haplogroup J2 which did not originate in or near Pakistan or India.

As to relevant haplogroups to the latter, see the following:

post-74391-0-53804500-1349039327_thumb.j

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lingusitcally, Prof. Madan Mohan Shukla plays Link-a-Lingua or Lego-Linguistics just like Puzzler does.

His theories are not accepted by Proper Linguists.

All of us that know the Puzz certainly recognized that the lego linguistic aspect was right up her ally! LOL :w00t:

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that would be Aristotle was right, not me.

What haplogroup would a Brahmin of 2000BC be then?

The guy I pictured was a Brahmin Jew.

In his blog he was having a rant about western Jews insitance that Jews were by nature Israilites, sorry, cant find the blog now.

Anyway, that's is beyond the point..

From Wikipedia.

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

The oldest of the Indian Jewish communities is in Cochin. The traditional account is that traders from Judea arrived in the city of Cochin, Kerala, in 562 BCE, and that more Jews came as exiles from Israel in the year 70 CE.

I think aristotle "322,384 BCE" was wrong.. These events occured a long 200 years before him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it have been the other way round?

* The Cochin Jews arrived in India 2,500 years ago and settled down in Kerala as traders.

* The Bene Israel arrived in the state of Maharashtra 2,100 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia....e_Jews_in_India

.+++++++

EDIT:

Ah, sorry Professor T, you already quoted from that link.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe thats the reason why Hitler at one point turn against Gypsies. Maybe he thought that they are Jewish spies.

The Jews were first on the Nazis' list of "parasites" whose depredations kept the Germans from achieving their natural prominence in the World, but the Gypsies were in there, too. And there was damn little "at one point" about it: the Nazis murdered a bigger proportion of Europe's Gypsies than Jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been hypothesized that Jews and the 12 tribes were people who were followers of Krishna (the blue God) and when Dwarka drowned (the fabled city of Krishna located in the Gujrat,Punjab,Pakistan regions) they migrated to the near East.The people of Krishna were called 'Yadhus' (modern descendants in India 'Yadavs') and the jews are still known as 'Yahudis' in the near East.

Mythologically the Yadhus were cursed by the Maternal uncle of Krishna called 'Kaansa' to be persucted through out their future.

There is lot of circumstantial evidence for the India and Jews connection but any Indologist who suggests the same is immediately branded a 'Hindu' nationalist etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.