Misplaced Pages

Y-chromosomal Aaron: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:49, 18 February 2008 edit189.27.99.190 (talk) Haplogroup placement← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:45, 28 December 2024 edit undoSMcCandlish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors201,689 edits cite cleanup; MOS:ELLIPSIS; MOS:CURLY; MOS:LQ; merged duplicate citations (4 cases); don't mix multiple, conflicting citation styles in the same article per WP:CITEVAR (using normal CS1 instead of Vancouver style, to match the bulk of the citations, and because Vanc. is "reader-hateful"); forcibly hiding author names from the readers after we've already gone to the trouble to enter them is pointless; bracketing commas come in pairs; don't mix verb tenses; MOS:JOBTITLES
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Y-chromosomal Aaron''' is the name given to the hypothesised most recent common ancestor of many of the ] Jewish priestly caste known as '']'' (singular "Kohen", "Cohen", or ''Kohane''). In the ] this ancestor is identified as ], the brother of ]. {{short description|Hypothesized most recent common ancestor of the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as Kohanim}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2021}}
'''Y-chromosomal Aaron''' is the name given to the hypothesized ] of the ] Jewish ] known as {{lang|he-Latn|]}} (singular {{lang|he-Latn|Kohen}}, also spelled {{lang|he-Latn|Cohen}}). According to the traditional understanding of the ], this ancestor was ], the brother of ]. A ] reading of the biblical text suggests that the origin of the priesthood could have been much more complex, and that for much if not all of the ], {{lang|he-Latn|Kohen}} may have not (necessarily) been synonymous with "Aaronide". Rather, this traditional identity seems to have been adopted sometime around the ].<ref name="Leuchter2019">{{cite web |date=2019 |title=How All Kohanim Became 'Sons of Aaron' |url= https://www.thetorah.com/article/how-all-kohanim-became-sons-of-aaron |website=TheTorah.com |last=Leuchter |first=M.}}</ref><ref name="Miller2015">{{cite thesis |title=Sacred Slaughter: The Discourse of Priestly Violence as Refracted Through the Zeal of Phinehas in the Hebrew Bible and in Jewish Literature |date=2015 |type=PhD |publisher=Harvard University |url= https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/23845464/MILLER-DISSERTATION-2015.pdf |pages=8–17 |last=Miller |first=Y. S. |quote=Skorecki's study generated much excitement in the wider Jewish community, as it was seen as vindicating at least one aspect of the historicity of the Hebrew Bible .... ecent research on the Cohen Modal Haplotype seems to vindicate the historical-critical hypothesis of competing priestly clans}}</ref><ref name="Origins">*{{cite encyclopedia |date=2007 |title=Priests and Priesthood |encyclopedia=] |publisher=Macmillan Reference USA |url= https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/priests-and-priesthood |edition=2nd |volume=16 |pages=514-515, 513-516, 513-526 |quote=the first priests were not necessarily from the levite tribe, though several dynasties of priests did descend from this tribe ... n the temples the right to officiate as priests was reserved for specific families which generally traced their lineage to the tribe of Levi.}}
* {{cite web |date=2017 |title=DNA and the Origin of the Jews |url= https://www.thetorah.com/article/dna-and-the-origin-of-the-jews |website=TheTorah.com |quote=We do not know if Aaron actually existed, but there is evidence from Josephus and rabbinic sources that priestly status was transmitted from father to son in the time of the Second Temple and the following centuries. |last=Weitzman |first=S.}}
* {{cite web |date=2019 |title=The Flowering Staff: Proof of Aaron's or the Levites' Election? |url= https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-flowering-staff-proof-of-aarons-or-the-levites-election |website=TheTorah.com |quote=Originally, however, the story presented YHWH's selection of the tribe of Levi as his priestly caste .... According to this verse (see also Deut 18:1-8; 33:8-10), YHWH chose the entire tribe of Levi from all the other tribes to serve as priests before him .... Num 17 ... presented the Levites, not the Aaronides, as the chosen priests. |last=Frankel |first=D.}}
* {{cite web |date=2015 |title=The Historical Circumstances that Inspired the Korah Narrative |url= https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-historical-circumstances-that-inspired-the-korah-narrative |website=TheTorah.com |quote=.... the historical process by which the Aaronides became a separate class among the Levites and superior to them .... Deuteronomy, for example, does not seem to differentiate priests from Levites .... No separate group of kohanim seems to exist, nor is the priesthood associated with Aaron or his descendants in the Deuteronomic corpus. |last=Levine |first=E.}}
* {{cite web |date=2013 |title=The Levite Rebellion Against The Priesthood: Why Were we demoted? |url= https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-levite-rebellion-against-the-priesthood-why-were-we-demoted |website=TheTorah.com |quote=The Korah story reflects part of the history of the growth of the priesthood. Korah's complaint harks back to a recollection that the elevated role of Aaron and his sons was once the role of all Levites. |last=Berlin |first=A.}}</ref>


The original scientific research was based on the hypothesis that a majority of present-day Jewish Kohanim share a pattern of values for six ] markers, which researchers named the extended ''Cohen Modal Haplotype'' (CMH).<ref name="Thomas1998">{{cite journal |last1=Thomas |first1=M. G. |last2=Skorecki |first2=K. |last3=Ben-Ami |first3=H. |last4=Parfitt |first4=T. |last5=Bradman |first5=N. |last6=Goldstein |first6=D. B. |date=July 1998 |title=Origins of Old Testament priests |journal=] |volume=394 |issue=6689 |pages=138–40 |bibcode=1998Natur.394..138T |doi=10.1038/28083 |pmid=9671297 |s2cid=4398155}}</ref> Subsequent research using twelve Y-STR markers indicated that nearly half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim shared Y-chromosomal ] (specifically ], also called J1c3), while other Kohanim share a different ancestry, such as ] (J-M410).<ref name="Hammer2009" />
Research published in 1997 and thereafter has indicated that a large proportion of contemporary Jewish Kohanim share a set of ] ]s, known as the '''Cohen Modal Haplotype''', which may well derive from this single common ancestor.
While these genetic studies were seen as possibly supporting the traditional biblical narrative, subsequent research (by the original researchers and others) has challenged this conclusion in a number of ways and has in fact shown that the genealogical record "refutes the idea of a single founder for Jewish Cohanim who lived in Biblical times",<ref name="Ostrer2012">{{cite book |last=Ostrer |first=Harry |url= https://www.google.com/books?id=RayZR3V1SFwC&pg=PT69 |title=Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People |date=2012 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-537961-7 |pages=97, 96–101 |quote=This finding generated considerable excitement, because it was taken as evidence of the fidelity of an oral tradition extending over millennia ... it has been discovered this Y-chromosomal set of markers is not unique to Jewish men ... this record refutes the idea of a single founder for Jewish Cohanim who lived in Biblical times .... Y-chromosomal analysis of Levites has demonstrated multiple origins that depend on the Diaspora community from which they came—they are not all the descendants of tribal founder Levi.}}</ref><ref name="Tofanelli20142">{{cite journal |last1=Tofanelli |first1=Sergio |last2=Taglioli |first2=Luca |last3=Bertoncini |first3=Stefania |last4=Francalacci |first4=Paolo |last5=Klyosov |first5=Anatole |author5-link=Klyosov |last6=Pagani |first6=Luca |date=10 November 2014 |title=Mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplotype motifs as diagnostic markers of Jewish ancestry: a reconsideration |journal=] |volume=5 |pages=384 |doi=10.3389/fgene.2014.00384 |pmc=4229899 |pmid=25431579 |quote=In conclusion ... the overall substantial polyphyletism as well as their systematic occurrence in non-Jewish groups highlights the lack of support for using them either as markers of Jewish ancestry or Biblical tales. |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Miller2015" /><ref name="Elhaik20162">{{cite journal |last1=Elhaik |first1=Eran |date=2016 |title=In Search of the jüdische Typus: A Proposed Benchmark to Test the Genetic Basis of Jewishness Challenges Notions of "Jewish Biomarkers" |journal=] |volume=7 |page=141 |doi=10.3389/fgene.2016.00141 |pmc=4974603 |pmid=27547215 |quote=This reasoning also characterizes the decade old pursuit of "Cohen" and "Levite", markers. Although dispelled on numerous occasions (Zoossmann-Diskin, 2006; Klyosov, 2009; Tofanelli et al., 2009), the pursuit for priestly biomarkers continued relentlessly to this day |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Behar20172">{{cite journal |last1=Behar |first1=Doron M. |last2=Saag |first2=Lauri |last3=Karmin |first3=Monika |last4=Gover |first4=Meir G. |last5=Wexler |first5=Jeffrey D. |last6=Sanchez |first6=Luisa Fernanda |last7=Greenspan |first7=Elliott |last8=Kushniarevich |first8=Alena |last9=Davydenko |first9=Oleg |last10=Sahakyan |first10=Hovhannes |last11=Yepiskoposyan |first11=Levon |last12=Boattini |first12=Alessio |last13=Sarno |first13=Stefania |last14=Pagani |first14=Luca |last15=Carmi |first15=Shai |date=2 November 2017 |title=The genetic variation in the R1a clade among the Ashkenazi Levites' Y chromosome |journal=] |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=14969 |bibcode=2017NatSR...714969B |doi=10.1038/s41598-017-14761-7 |issn=2045-2322 |pmc=5668307 |pmid=29097670 |quote=members of the R1a-Y2619 Levite caste and the J1a-P58 Cohen caste do not share a common male ancestor within the time frame of the Biblical narrative. |last16=Tzur |first16=Shay |last17=Metspalu |first17=Ene |last18=Bormans |first18=Concetta |last19=Skorecki |first19=Karl |last20=Metspalu |first20=Mait |last21=Rootsi |first21=Siiri |last22=Villems |first22=Richard}}</ref><ref name="Relethford20182">{{cite book |last1=Relethford |first1=John H. |url= https://www.google.com/books?id=GCZTDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA208 |title=Reflections of Our Past: How Human History Is Revealed in Our Genes |last2=Bolnick |first2=Deborah A. |date=2018 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-89171-7 |page=208 |quote=In sum, the presence of the J-P58* haplogroup is a marker of Middle Eastern ancestry, and the more specific Extended CMH is a marker of Kohanim ancestry. Of course, many Kohanim have other Y-chromosome haplotypes, so there is not a one-to-one correlation, and there was probably more than one founding male lineage for the Kohanim.}}</ref><ref name="Weitzman20192">{{cite book |last1=Weitzman |first1=Steven |url= https://www.google.com/books?id=c3SYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA297 |title=The Origin of the Jews: The Quest for Roots in a Rootless Age |date=2019 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-19165-2 |pages=297–298, 294 |quote=Subsequent research has challenged this conclusion in a number of ways. One big problem is that the Cohen Modal Haplotype is found not only in priests but also among non-Jewish populations in Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. At first there were efforts to suggest such populations might also be descendant from the Hebrews, as in the famous case of the Lemba, an African tribe in Southern Africa (more about them a bit later). But it has since become clear that the original Cohen Modal Haplotype might have been common among Middle Eastern populations, not exclusive to the Jews or their Israelite ancestors ... the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype, the version that is supposed to distinguish Jewish priests, probably split off from an older Cohen haplotype far more recently than earlier geneticists concluded. Beyond the question of when the split occurred, the authors of this study make a larger point: figuring out the right mutation rate to apply is a hotly contested issue; mutation rates are not constant in the real world, and the longer the time span to a common ancestor, the harder it is to pinpoint a distinctive genetic signature or to accurately estimate the amount of time involved.}}</ref> and rather "seems to vindicate the historical-critical hypothesis of competing priestly clans."<ref name="Miller2015" />


==Background== ==Background==
{{See|Molecular clock|Who is a Jew?}}
Although membership in the ] community is traditionally passed ] (see: ]), membership in the group that originally comprised the Jewish ] ("Kohens" or ''Kohanim''), is patrilineal, and modern Kohens claim descent from ], brother of ].
For human beings, the normal number of ]s is 46, of which 23 are inherited from each parent. Two chromosomes, the ] and ], determine sex. Females have two X chromosomes, one inherited from each of their parents. Males have an X chromosome inherited from their mother, and a Y chromosome inherited from their father.


Males who share a common ] ancestor also share a common Y chromosome, diverging only with respect to accumulated ]s. Since ]s are passed from father to son, all Kohanim men should theoretically have nearly identical Y chromosomes; this can be assessed with a ]. As the ] on the Y chromosome is relatively constant, scientists can estimate the elapsed time since two men had a ].
For human beings the normal number of ]s is 46, of which 23 are inherited from each parent. Two chromosomes, the ] and ], determine gender. Women have two X chromosomes, one inherited from their mother, and one inherited from their father. Men have an X chromosome inherited from their mother, and a Y chromosome inherited from their father.


Although ] has traditionally (according to rabbinic-Jewish law I.E. since around the 1st century CE) been passed by ], membership in the Jewish ] caste has been determined by patrilineal descent (see ]). Modern Kohanim are traditionally regarded in Judaism as male descendants of biblical ], a direct patrilineal descendant of ], according to the lineage recorded in the ] (שמות / Sh'mot/Exodus 6).
Males who share a common ] ancestor should also share a Y chromosome, diverging only with respect to accumulated ]s. Since Y-chromosomes are passed from father to son, all Kohanim men should theoretically have almost identical Y chromosomes; this can be tested with a ]. As the rate that mutations accumulate on the Y chromosome is relatively constant, scientists can estimate the elapsed time since two men had a common ancestor. (See ].)


With the development of methods to follow specific DNA sequences of the human genome, interest in the Cohanim (and Levites) has gained new momentum as an instrument for proof of the common origins of the current Jewish ethnic-groups in the population of the Land of Israel two thousand years ago, as narrated in the biblical story.<ref name="Falk2017" /> Skorecki, who carried out the initial study, told the journalist Jon Entine, "I was interested in the question: To what extent was our shared oral tradition matched by other evidence?"<ref name="Ostrer2012" /><ref>{{cite book |last=Entine |first=J. |title=Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People |date=2007 |publisher=Grand Central Publishing |isbn=978-0-446-40839-4 |url= https://www.google.com/books/?id=_uO2jMwZVykC&pg=PT52}}</ref>
==Initial studies==
The Cohen hypothesis was first ] by Prof. Karl Skorecki and collaborators from ], ], in 1997. In their study, "Y chromosomes of Jewish priests," published in the journal '']'',<ref name="Skorecki1997">{{cite journal | last=Skorecki | first = K | coauthors = Selig S, Blazer S, Bradman R, Bradman N, Waburton PJ, Ismajlowicz M, Hammer MF | year = 1997 | url = http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html | title = Y chromosomes of Jewish priests | journal = ] | volume = 385 |pages = 32 |id = PMID 8985243}}</ref> they found that the Kohanim appeared to share a different probability distribution compared to the rest of the Jewish population for the two Y-chromosome markers they tested (] and DYS 19); and that furthermore the probabilities appeared to be shared by both ] and ] Cohens, pointing to a common Cohen population origin before the ] at the time of the Roman empire.


==Initial study==
A subsequent study the next year (Thomas MG ''et al'', 1998)<ref name="Thomas1998">{{cite journal | last = Thomas | first = MG | coauthors = Skorecki K, Ben-Ami H, Parfitt T, Bradman N, Goldstein DB | year = 1998 | url = http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Thomas-98-Nat-Cohen.pdf | title = Origins of Old Testament priests | journal = Nature | volume = 394 | pages = 138-40 | id = PMID 9671297}}</ref> increased the number of ] markers tested to six, as well as testing more ] markers. Again, they found that a clear difference was observable between the Cohanim population and the general Jewish population, with many of the Cohen STR results clustered around a single pattern they named the Cohen Modal Haplotype:
The Kohen hypothesis was first ] through DNA analysis in 1997 by Karl Skorecki and collaborators from ], Israel. In their study, "Y chromosomes of Jewish priests", published in the journal ''],''<ref name="Skorecki1997">{{cite journal |last1=Skorecki |first1=K. |last2=Selig |first2=S. |last3=Blazer |first3=S. |last4=Bradman |first4=R. |last5=Bradman |first5=N. |last6=Waburton |first6=P. J. |last7=Ismajlowicz |first7=M. |last8=Hammer |first8=M. F. |title=Y chromosomes of Jewish priests |journal=] |volume=385 |issue=6611 |pages=32 |date=January 1997 |pmid=8985243 |doi=10.1038/385032a0 |s2cid=5344425 |bibcode=1997Natur.385...32S |doi-access=free}}</ref> they found that the Kohanim appeared to share a different ] compared to the rest of the Jewish population for the two Y-chromosome markers they tested (] and DYS19). They also found that the probabilities appeared to be shared by both ] and ] Kohens, pointing to a common Kohen population origin before the ] at the ]. However, this study also indicated that only 48% of Ashkenazi Kohens and 58% of Sephardic Kohens have the J1 Cohen Modal Haplotype. Such genetic markers were also found in approximately 5% of Jews who did not believe themselves to be kohanim.<ref name="Skorecki1997" />


In a subsequent study the next year (Thomas MG ''et al.'', 1998),<ref name="Thomas1998" /> the team increased the number of ] markers tested to six, as well as testing more ] markers. Again, they found that a clear difference was observable between the Kohanim population and the general Jewish population, with many of the Kohen STR results clustered around a single pattern they named the Kohen Modal Haplotype:
:{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; font-size: 90%"
<!--border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 0.5em 1em 0.5em 0; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 90%"-->
!&nbsp; ||xDE<ref name="Skorecki1997" />||xDE,PR<ref name="Thomas1998" /> ||Hg J<ref name="Behar2003" /> ||CMH.1<ref name="Thomas1998" /> ||CMH<ref name="Thomas1998" /> || || CMH.1/HgJ || CMH/HgJ
|-


:{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; font-size:90%"
<!--border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0.5em 1em 0.5em 0; border:1px #aaa solid; border-collapse:collapse; font-size:90%"-->
!&nbsp;||xDE<ref name="Skorecki1997" />||xDE,PR<ref name="Thomas1998" />||Hg J<ref name="Behar2003" />||CMH.1<ref name="Thomas1998" />||CMH<ref name="Thomas1998" />|| ||CMH.1/HgJ||CMH/HgJ
|- |-
!Ashkenazi Cohanim (AC): !Ashkenazi Cohanim (AC):
||98.5% ||96% ||87% ||69% ||45% || ||79% ||52% ||98.5%||96%||87%||69%||45%|| ||79%||52%
|- |-
!Sephardi Cohanim (SC): !Sephardic Cohanim (SC):
||100% ||88% ||75% ||61% ||56% || ||81% ||75% ||100%||88%||75%||61%||56%|| ||81%||75%
|- |-
!Ashkenazi Jews (AI):
||82%||62%||37%||15%||13%|| ||40%||35%
|- |-
!Ashkenazi Israelites (AI): !Sephardic Jews (SI):
||82% ||62% ||37% ||15% ||13% || ||40% ||35% ||85%||63%||37%||14%||10%|| ||38%||27%
|-
!Sephardi Israelites (SI):
||85% ||63% ||37% ||14% ||10% || ||38% ||27%
|} |}


Here, becoming increasingly specific, xDE is the proportion who were not in Haplogroups ] or ] (from the original paper); xDE,PR is the proportion who were not in haplogroups D, E, ], ] or ]; Hg J is the proportion who were in ] (from the slightly larger panel studied by Behar et al (2003)<ref name=Behar2003>{{cite journal | last = Behar | first = DM | coauthors = Thomas MG, Skorecki K, Hammer MF, Bulygina E, Rosengarten D, Jones AL, Held K, Moses V, Goldstein D, Bradman N, Weale ME | year=2003 | url=http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v73n4/40097/40097.html | title = Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries | journal = Am. J. Hum. Genet. | volume = 73 | pages = 768–779 | id = PMID 13680527}} <!-- also at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Behar-AJHG-03.pdf--></ref>); CMH.1 means "within one marker of the CMH-6"; and CMH is the proportion with a 6/6 match. The final two columns show the conditional proportions for CMH.1 and CMH, given membership of Haplogroup J. Here, becoming increasingly specific, xDE is the proportion who were not in Haplogroups ] or ] (from the original paper); xDE,PR is the proportion who were not in haplogroups D, E, ], ] or ]; Hg J is the proportion who were in ] (from the slightly larger panel studied by Behar et al. (2003)<ref name="Behar2003">{{cite journal |last1=Behar |first1=D. M. |last2=Thomas |first2=M. G. |last3=Skorecki |first3=K. |last4=Hammer |first4=M. F. |last5=Bulygina |first5=E. |last6=Rosengarten |first6=D. |last7=Jones |first7=A. L. |last8=Held |first8=K. |last9=Moses |first9=V. |last10=Goldstein |first10=D. |last11=Bradman |first11=N. |last12=Weale |first12=M. E. |title=Multiple origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y chromosome evidence for both Near Eastern and European ancestries |journal=] |volume=73 |issue=4 |pages=768–79 |date=October 2003 |pmid=13680527 |pmc=1180600 |doi=10.1086/378506}} <!-- also at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Behar-AJHG-03.pdf--></ref>); CMH.1 means "within one marker of the CMH-6"; and CMH is the proportion with a 6/6 match. The final two columns show the conditional proportions for CMH.1 and CMH, given membership of Haplogroup J.

The data show that the Kohanim were more than twice as likely to belong to Haplogroup J than the average non-Cohen Jew. Of those who did belong to Haplogroup J, the Kohanim were more than twice as likely to have an STR pattern close to the CMH-6, suggesting a much more recent common ancestry for most of them compared to an average non-Kohen Jew of Haplogroup J.


===Dating===
The data shows that the Cohanim were more than twice as likely to belong to Haplogroup J than the average non-Cohen Jew; and of those who did belong to Haplogroup J, the Cohanim were more than twice as likely to have an STR pattern close to the CMH-6, suggesting a much more recent common ancestry for most of them compared to an average non-Cohen Jew of Haplogroup J.
Thomas, ''et al.'' dated the origin of the shared DNA to approximately 3,000 years ago (with variance arising from different generation lengths). The techniques used to find Y-chromosomal Aaron were first popularized in relation to the search for the patrilineal ancestor of all contemporary living humans, ].


Subsequent calculations under the coalescent model for J1 haplotypes bearing the Cohanim motif gave time estimates that place the origin of this genealogy around 6,200 years ago (95% CI: 4.5–8.6 Kybp), earlier than previously thought, and well before the origin of Judaism (], ~2.0 Kybp).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tofanelli |first1=S. |last2=Ferri |first2=G. |last3=Bulayeva |first3=K. |last4=Caciagli |first4=L |last5=Onofri |first5=V. |last6=Taglioli |first6=L. |last7=Bulayev |first7=O. |last8=Boschi |first8=I. |last9=Alù |first9=M. |last10=Berti |first10=A. |last11=Rapone |first11=C. |last12=Beduschi |first12=G. |last13=Luiselli |first13=D. |last14=Cadenas |first14=A. M. |last15=Awadelkarim |first15=K. D. |last16=Mariani-Costantini |first16=R. |last17=Elwali |first17=N. E. |last18=Verginelli |first18=F. |last19=Pilli |first19=E. |last20=Herrera |first20=R. J. |last21=Gusmão |first21=L. |last22=Paoli |first22=G. |last23=Capelli |first23=C. |title=J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements |journal=] |volume=17 |issue=11 |pages=1520–4 |date=November 2009 |pmid=19367321 |pmc=2986692 |doi=10.1038/ejhg.2009.58}}</ref>
Thomas et al dated the origin of the shared DNA to approximately 3,000 years ago (with variance arising from different generation lengths). The techniques used to find Y-chromosomal Aaron were first popularized in relation to the search for the patrilineal ancestor of all contemporary living ]s, ].


===Responses=== ===Responses===
The finding led to excitement in religious circles, with some seeing it as providing some proof of the historical veracity of the ] or other religious convictions.<ref name="Miller2015" /><ref name="Ostrer2012" /><ref name="Falk2017" /><ref>{{cite web |last1=Weitzman |first1=Steven |title=DNA and the Origin of the Jews |url= https://www.thetorah.com/article/dna-and-the-origin-of-the-jews |website=TheTorah.com |date=2017 |quote=the existence of the CMH along with its dating range were suggestive enough to lead the public to mistake the genetic findings as scientific evidence that cohanim were descendant from Aaron himself.}}</ref><ref name="Weitzman2019">{{cite book |last1=Weitzman |first1=Steven |title=The Origin of the Jews: The Quest for Roots in a Rootless Age |date=2019 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-19165-2 |url= https://www.google.com/books?id=c3SYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA297 |pages=297–298, 294 |quote=Subsequent research has challenged this conclusion in a number of ways. One big problem is that the Cohen Modal Haplotype is found not only in priests but also among non-Jewish populations in Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. At first there were efforts to suggest such populations might also be descendant from the Hebrews, as in the famous case of the Lemba, an African tribe in Southern Africa (more about them a bit later). But it has since become clear that the original Cohen Modal Haplotype might have been common among Middle Eastern populations, not exclusive to the Jews or their Israelite ancestors... the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype, the version that is supposed to distinguish Jewish priests, probably split off from an older Cohen haplotype far more recently than earlier geneticists concluded. Beyond the question of when the split occurred, the authors of this study make a larger point: figuring out the right mutation rate to apply is a hotly contested issue; mutation rates are not constant in the real world, and the longer the time span to a common ancestor, the harder it is to pinpoint a distinctive genetic signature or to accurately estimate the amount of time involved.}}</ref>
The finding led to excitement in religious circles, with some seeing it as providing some "proof" of the historical veracity of the ]<ref>{{ cite web| last = Kleiman | first = Rabbi Yaakov | date = 2000 | url = http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/the_cohanim_-_dna_connection.asp | title = The Cohanim/DNA connection}}</ref> or other religious convictions,<ref>{{cite web | last = Clark | first = David | date = 2002 | url = http://www.geocities.com/hrhdavid/English/frames/index.html | title =Cohanim Modal Haplotype (CMH) finds the Ten Lost Tribes! (among Iraqi Kurds, Hungarians, and Armenians)}}</ref> but there was also criticism that the paper's evidence was being overstated.<ref>{{cite journal | last= Zoossmann-Diskin | first = Avshalom |year = 2001 | title = Are today's Jewish priests descended from the old ones? | journal = Journal of Comparative Human Biology | volume = 51 | issue = 2-3 | pages = 156-162}} ()</ref>


Following the discovery of the very high prevalence of 6/6 CMH matches amongst Kohanim, other researchers and analysts were quick to look for it. Some groups have taken the presence of this haplotype as indicating possible Jewish ancestry, although the chromosome is not exclusive to Jews. It is widely found among other ]s of the Middle East.<ref name="Ostrer2012" />


Early research suggested that the 6/6 matches found among male ] of Southern Africa confirmed their oral history of descent from Jews and connection to Jewish culture.<ref name="Thomas2000">{{cite journal |last1=Thomas |first1=M. G. |last2=Parfitt |first2=T. |last3=Weiss |first3=D. A. |last4=Skorecki |first4=K. |last5=Wilson |first5=J. F. |last6=le Roux |first6=M. |last7=Bradman |first7=N. |last8=Goldstein |first8=D. B. |title=Y chromosomes traveling south: the cohen modal haplotype and the origins of the Lemba--the "Black Jews of Southern Africa" |journal=] |volume=66 |issue=2 |pages=674–86 |date=February 2000 |pmid=10677325 |pmc=1288118 |doi=10.1086/302749}}</ref> Later research has been unable to confirm this (due to the fact that CMH was widely found among other Semitic peoples of the Middle East) although it has shown that some male Lemba have Middle Eastern ancestry.<ref name="Ostrer2012" /><ref name="Soodyall">{{cite book |last1=Soodyall |first1=H. |last2=Kromberg |first2=J. G. |editor1-last=Kumar |editor1-first=D. |editor2-last=Chadwick |editor2-first=R. |title=Genomics and Society: Ethical, Legal, Cultural and Socioeconomic Implications |publisher=Academic Press/Elsevier |isbn=978-0-12-420195-8 |page=316 |chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=E9icBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA316 |chapter=Human Genetics and Genomics and Sociocultural Beliefs and Practices in South Africa |date=29 October 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Soodyall |first=H. |title=Lemba origins revisited: tracing the ancestry of Y chromosomes in South African and Zimbabwean Lemba |journal=] |volume=103 |issue=12 Suppl 1 |pages=1009–13 |date=October 2013 |pmid=24300649 |doi=10.7196/samj.7297 |doi-broken-date=10 November 2024}}</ref><ref name="Tofanelli2014">{{cite journal |last1=Tofanelli |first1=S. |last2=Taglioli |first2=L. |last3=Bertoncini |first3=S. |last4=Francalacci |first4=P. |last5=Klyosov |first5=A. |author5-link=Anatole Klyosov |last6=Pagani |first6=L. |date=10 November 2014 |title=Mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplotype motifs as diagnostic markers of Jewish ancestry: a reconsideration |journal=] |volume=5 |pages=384 |doi=10.3389/fgene.2014.00384 |pmc=4229899 |pmid=25431579 |quote=In conclusion... the overall substantial polyphyletism as well as their systematic occurrence in non-Jewish groups highlights the lack of support for using them either as markers of Jewish ancestry or Biblical tales. |doi-access=free}}</ref>
The most basic difficulty with Y-chromosomal Aaron being identified with J-M267 (J1) is that Abraham and the Semitic tribes originate from Southern Arabia/Ethiopia and not the Levant or Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have mapped the ancient Semitic tribes to modern Ethiopia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. The only exception to these were the tribes of Aram (Aram-Damascus), Asshur, and Elam as small cluster groups in Mesopotamia overshadowed by Assyria and Babylon (both listed as Hamitic; see Genesis 10). This suggests a Southern Arabian/Ethiopian origin for the Semites and Abraham, which does not correspond to the evolution of haplogroup J in the Levant.<ref>Yohanan Aharoni, et al, The Macmillan Bible Atlas, Macmillan Publishing: New York, 1993, p. 21.</ref>


Critics such as Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin suggested that the paper's evidence was being overstated in terms of showing Jewish descent among these distant populations.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Zoossmann-Diskin |first=Avshalom |date=2000 |title=Are today's Jewish priests descended from the old ones? |journal=] |volume=51 |issue=2–3 |pages=156–162}} ()</ref><ref name="Weitzman2019" />


==Limitations==
A secondary difficulty with the dating of the CMH (which properly can only include J-M267) is that the traditional date for Abraham is not known, but often cited as ca. 2200-2000 BCE; Aaron and Moses were exactly 7 generations after Abraham (Exodus 6:14-25). The traditional date for the Conquest of Canaan is 1450 BCE. Moses and Aaron would have lived before the Conquest. Thomas' date of 3000 BP or 1000 BCE falls short of the dates of the same biblical tradition upon which the Cohen tradition was founded.
] scatterplot of Y-STR haplotypes from Haplogroup J, calculated using 6 STRs.
With only six Y-STRs, it is not possible to resolve the different subgroups of Hg J.]]
] scatterplot of Y-STR haplotypes from Haplogroup J, calculated using 37 STRs.
With 37 Y-STR markers, clearly distinct STR clusters can be resolved, matching the distinct J1, J2 and J2b subgroups. The haplotypes often associated with Cohen lineages in each group are highlighted as J1 C37 and J2 C37, respectively.]]


One source of early confusion was the low resolution of the available tests. The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH), while frequent amongst Kohanim, also appeared in the general populations of haplogroups ] and ] with no particular link to the Kohen ancestry. These haplogroups occur widely throughout the Middle East and beyond.<ref name="Nebel2001">{{cite journal |last1=Nebel |first1=A. |last2=Filon |first2=D. |last3=Brinkmann |first3=B. |last4=Majumder |first4=P. P. |last5=Faerman |first5=M. |last6=Oppenheim |first6=A. |title=The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East |journal=] |volume=69 |issue=5 |pages=1095–112 |date=November 2001 |pmid=11573163 |pmc=1274378 |doi=10.1086/324070}}</ref><ref name="Semino2004">{{cite journal |last1=Semino |first1=O. |last2=Magri |first2=C. |last3=Benuzzi |first3=G. |last4=Lin |first4=A. A. |last5=Al-Zahery |first5=N |last6=Battaglia |first6=V. |last7=Maccioni |first7=L. |last8=Triantaphyllidis |first8=C. |last9=Shen |first9=P. |last10=Oefner |first10=P. J. |last11=Zhivotovsky |first11=L. A. |last12=King |first12=R. |last13=Torroni |first13=A. |last14=Cavalli-Sforza |first14=L. L. |author14-link=Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza |last15=Underhill |first15=P. A. |last16=Santachiara-Benerecetti |first16=A. S. |title=Origin, diffusion, and differentiation of Y-chromosome haplogroups E and J: inferences on the neolithization of Europe and later migratory events in the Mediterranean area |journal=] |volume=74 |issue=5 |pages=1023–34 |date=May 2004 |pmid=15069642 |pmc=1181965 |doi=10.1086/386295}}<!-- also at http://www.ftdna.com/pdf/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf] --></ref><ref name="Ostrer2012" /><ref name="Tofanelli2014" /><ref name="Weitzman2019" /> Thus, while many Kohanim have haplotypes close to the CMH, a greater number of such haplotypes worldwide belong to people with no apparent connection to the Jewish priesthood.
==Cohens in other haplogroups==
Behar's 2003 data<ref name="Behar2003" /> points to the following Haplogroup distribution for Cohens as a whole:


Individuals with at least 5/6 matches for the original 6-marker Cohen Modal Haplotype are found across the Middle East, with significant frequencies among various Arab populations, mainly those with the J1 Haplogroup. These have not been "traditionally considered admixed with mainstream Jewish populations" – the frequency of the J1 Haplogroup is the following: ] (34.2%), ] (22.8%), ] (21.9%), and ] (19.2%); and amongst Muslim ] (22.1%), ] (21.9%), and ] (12.7%).<ref name="Ekins2005">{{cite journal |last1=Ekins |first1=J. |last2=Tinah |first2=E. N. |last3=Myres |first3=N. M. |last4=Ritchie |first4=K. H. |last5=Perego |first5=U. A. |last6=Ekins |first6=J. B. |last7=Hutchison |first7=L. A. |last8=Layton |first8=L. |last9=Lunt |first9=M. L. |last10=Masek |first10=S. S. |last11=Nelson |first11=A. A. |last12=Nelson |first12=M. E. |last13=Pennington |first13=K. L. |last14=Peterson |first14=J. L. |last15=Tolley |first15=T. |last16=Woodward |first16=S. R. |date=2005 |url= http://www.smgf.org/resources/papers/ASHG2005_Jayne.pdf |title=An Updated World-Wide Characterization of the Cohen Modal Haplotype |journal=] Meeting October 2005 |access-date=19 February 2008 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110718190942/http://www.smgf.org/resources/papers/ASHG2005_Jayne.pdf |archive-date=18 July 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
:{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; font-size: 90%"
!Hg: || ] || ] || ] || ]|| ] || ]|| ]|| ] || ]|| || Total
|- style="border-top:2px solid grey;"
! AC
| 3 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 67 || 2 || 0 || 1 || 2 || || 76
|- style="border-bottom:2px solid grey;"
!
| 4% || || 1½% || || 88% || 2½% || || 1½% || 2½%|| || 100%
|-
! SC
| 3 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 52 || 2 || 2 || 3 || 4 || || 68
|-
!
| 4½% || 1½% || || 1½% || 76% || 3% || 3% || 4½% || 6% || || 100%
|}


On the other hand, Jewish populations were found to have a "markedly higher" proportion of full 6/6 matches, according to the same (2005) meta-analysis.<ref name="Ekins2005" /> This was compared to these non-Jewish populations, where "individuals matching at only 5/6 markers are most commonly observed".<ref name="Ekins2005" />
The detailed breakdown by 6-marker haplotype (the paper's online-only table B) suggests that some at least even of these groups (eg E3b, R1b) contain more than one distinct Cohen lineage. It is possible that still further other lineages may also exist, but were not captured in the sample.


The authors Elkins, et al., warned in their report that "using the current CMH definition to infer relation of individuals or groups to the Cohen or ancient Hebrew populations would produce many ] results", and noted that "it is possible that the originally defined CMH represents a slight permutation of a more general Middle Eastern type that was established early on in the population prior to the divergence of haplogroup J. Under such conditions, parallel ] in divergent clades to the same STR haplotype would be possible".<ref name="Ekins2005" />
==Does a CMH prove Cohen ancestry?==
One source of early confusion was a widespread popular notion that only Cohens or only Jews could have the Cohen Modal Haplotype. It is now clear that this is not the case. The Cohen Modal Haplotype, whilst notably frequent amongst Cohens, is also far from unusual in the general populations of haplogroups ] and ] with no particular link to the Cohen ancestry. These haplogroups occur widely throughout the Middle East and beyond <ref name=Nebel2001>{{cite journal | last = Nebel | first = A | coauthors = Filon D, Brinkmann B, Majumder PP, Faerman M, Oppenheim A | year = 2001 | url = http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v69n5/013033/013033.html | title = The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East | journal = Am. J. Hum. Genet. | volume = 69 | pages = 1095–1112 | id = PMID 11573163}}</ref><sup>,</sup><ref name=Semino2004>{{cite journal | last = Semino | first = O | coauthors = Magri C, Benuzzi G, Lin AA, Al-Zahery N, Battaglia V, Maccioni L, Triantaphyllidis C, Shen P, Oefner PJ, Zhivotovsky LA, King R, Torroni A, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Underhill PA, Santachiara-Benerecetti AS | year = 2004 | url = http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40867/40867.html | title = Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area | journal = Am. J. Hum. Genet. | volume = 74 | pages = 1023–1034 | id = PMID 15069642}}<!-- also at http://www.ftdna.com/pdf/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf] --></ref>. So whilst many Cohens have haplotypes close to the CMH, a far larger number of such haplotypes worldwide belong to people with no likely Cohen connection at all.


Cadenas ''et al.'' analysed Y-DNA patterns from around the ] in more detail in 2007.<ref name="Cadenas2007">{{cite journal |last1=Cadenas |first1=A. M. |last2=Zhivotovsky |first2=L. A. |last3=Cavalli-Sforza |first3=L. L. |author3-link=Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza |last4=Underhill |first4=P. A. |last5=Herrera |first5=R. J. |title=Y-chromosome diversity characterizes the Gulf of Oman |journal=] |volume=16 |issue=3 |pages=374–86 |date=March 2008 |pmid=17928816 |doi=10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201934 |s2cid=32386262 |doi-access=free}}</ref> The detailed data confirm that the main cluster of haplogroup J1 haplotypes from the Yemeni appears to be some genetic distance from the CMH-12 pattern typical of eastern European ] Kohanim, but not of Sephardic Kohanim.
Statistically the value of matching the CMH can be assessed using ], which in its ] form can be written:


===Multiple ancestries===
:<math>\frac{P(C|D,I)}{P({C^'}|D,I)} = \frac{P(C|I)}{P({C^'}|I)} \cdot \frac{P(D|C)}{P(D|{C^'})}</math>
While there is evidence from ] and rabbinic sources that this tradition existed by the end of the ] (1st century CE, nearly a millennium and a half after the tradition places Aaron), there is no further evidence to support its historicity. According to modern biblical scholarship, a ] reading of the biblical text suggests that the origin of the priesthood is much more complex, and that for much if not all of the ], kohen was not (necessarily) synonymous with "Aaronide". Rather, this traditional identity seems to have been adopted sometime around the ].<ref name="Leuchter2019" /><ref name="Miller2015" /><ref name="Origins" />


Even within the Jewish Kohen population, it became clear that there were multiple Kohen lineages, including distinctive lineages both in Haplogroup J1 and in haplogroup J2.<ref name="Malaspina2001">{{cite journal |last1=Malaspina |first1=P. |last2=Tsopanomichalou |first2=M. |last3=Duman |first3=T. |last4=Stefan |first4=M. |last5=Silvestri |first5=A. |last6=Rinaldi |first6=B. |last7=Garcia |first7=O. |last8=Giparaki |first8=M. |last9=Plata |first9=E. |last10=Kozlov |first10=A. I. |last11=Barbujani |first11=G. |last12=Vernesi |first12=C. |last13=Papola |first13=F. |last14=Ciavarella |first14=G. |last15=Kovatchev |first15=D. |last16=Kerimova |first16=M. G. |last17=Anagnou |first17=N. |last18=Gavrila |first18=L. |last19=Veneziano |first19=L. |last20=Akar |first20=N. |last21=Loutradis |first21=A. |last22=Michalodimitrakis |first22=E. N. |last23=Terrenato |first23=L. |last24=Novelletto |first24=A. |title=A multistep process for the dispersal of a Y chromosomal lineage in the Mediterranean area |journal=] |volume=65 |issue=Pt 4 |pages=339–49 |date=July 2001 |pmid=11592923 |doi=10.1046/j.1469-1809.2001.6540339.x |hdl-access=free |s2cid=221448190 |hdl=2108/44448}}<br />Confusingly, because only four of the markers that Malaspina et al. tested were markers in common with the CMH study, three of which matched, they originally concluded that ''all'' of the CMH matches should be identified with what is now called Haplogroup J2. This is now known not to be the case.</ref><ref name="Hammer2009" /><ref name="Ostrer2012" /><ref name="Miller2015" /><ref name="Relethford2018">{{cite book |last1=Relethford |first1=John H. |last2=Bolnick |first2=Deborah A. |title=Reflections of Our Past: How Human History Is Revealed in Our Genes |date=2018 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-89171-7 |page=208 |url= https://www.google.com/books?id=GCZTDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA208 |quote=In sum, the presence of the J-P58* haplogroup is a marker of Middle Eastern ancestry, and the more specific Extended CMH is a marker of Kohanim ancestry. Of course, many Kohanim have other Y-chromosome haplotypes, so there is not a one-to-one correlation, and there was probably more than one founding male lineage for the Kohanim.}}</ref> Other groups of Jewish lineages (i.e. Jews who are non-kohanim) and even non-Jews were found in Haplogroup J2 that matched the original 6-marker CMH, but which were unrelated and not associated with Kohanim.<ref name="Ostrer2012" /><ref name="Tofanelli2014" /><ref name="Weitzman2019" /> Current estimates, based on the accumulation of SNP mutations, place the defining mutations that distinguish haplogroups J1 and J2 as having occurred about 20 to 30,000 years ago.<ref name="Ostrer2012" />
In words, this says that the odds in favour of Cohen ancestry ''C'' (ie the probability of having Cohen ancestry, divided by the probability of ''not'' having Cohen ancestry), having observed some piece of data ''D'', is given by the odds one would assign given only one's initial information ''I'', multiplied by the probability of having observed ''D'' if ''C'' is true, divided by the probability of having observed ''D'' if ''C'' is false.


==Subsequent studies==
(In fact, for convenience we shall work with the ] of this equation, ie work in terms of odds ''against'', rather than odds ''on'').


Subsequent research (by the original researchers and others) has challenged the original conclusion in a number of ways and has in fact shown that the genealogical record "refutes the idea of a single founder for Jewish Cohanim who lived in Biblical times."<ref name="Ostrer2012" /><ref name="Tofanelli2014" /><ref name="Miller2015" /><ref name="Elhaik2016">{{cite journal |last1=Elhaik |first1=Eran |title=In Search of the jüdische Typus: A Proposed Benchmark to Test the Genetic Basis of Jewishness Challenges Notions of "Jewish Biomarkers" |journal=] |date=2016 |volume=7 |page=141 |doi=10.3389/fgene.2016.00141 |pmid=27547215 |quote=This reasoning also characterizes the decade old pursuit of "Cohen" and "Levite", markers. Although dispelled on numerous occasions (Zoossmann-Diskin, 2006; Klyosov, 2009; Tofanelli et al., 2009), the pursuit for priestly biomarkers continued relentlessly to this day |pmc=4974603 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Behar2017">{{cite journal |last1=Behar |first1=D. M. |last2=Saag |first2=L. |last3=Karmin |first3=M. |last4=Gover |first4=M. G. |last5=Wexler |first5=J. D. |last6=Sanchez |first6=L. F. |last7=Greenspan |first7=E. |last8=Kushniarevich |first8=A. |last9=Davydenko |first9=O. |last10=Sahakyan |first10=H. |last11=Yepiskoposyan |first11=L. |last12=Boattini |first12=A. |last13=Sarno |first13=S. |last14=Pagani |first14=L. |last15=Carmi |first15=S. |last16=Tzur |first16=S. |last17=Metspalu |first17=E. |last18=Bormans |first18=C. |last19=Skorecki |first19=K. |last20=Metspalu |first20=M. |last21=Rootsi |first21=S. |last22=Villems |first22=R. |title=The genetic variation in the R1a clade among the Ashkenazi Levites' Y chromosome |journal=] |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=14969 |date=November 2017 |pmid=29097670 |pmc=5668307 |doi=10.1038/s41598-017-14761-7 |quote=Remarkably, the five Ashkenazi Cohen samples formed the tight cluster J1b-B877, shared only with one Yemenite, one Bulgarian and one Moroccan Cohen coalescing ~2,570 ybp (Table 1). |bibcode=2017NatSR...714969B}}</ref><ref name="Relethford2018" /><ref name="Weitzman2019" />
The proportion of the whole male Jewish population that has Cohen ancestry has been estimated at 5%<ref name=Skorecki1997 />. So if we take that 5% as our initial estimate of the probability of shared Cohen ancestry, then on the basis of the data above:
* Not belonging to haplogroups D or E improves the odds for a Sephardi Jew from 19/1 against to (19/1)*(0.85/1.00) = 16.2/1 against (a 5.8% probability)
* Not belonging to haplogroups D,E,P,Q or R takes the odds to (19/1)*(0.63/0.88) = 13.6/1 against (6.8% probability).
* Membership of Haplogroup J improves the odds to (19/1)*(0.37/0.75) = 9.4/1 against (9.6% probability).
* Being within the CMH.1 group takes the odds to (19/1)*(0.14/0.61) = 4.4/1 against (18.7% probability).
* A full 6/6 match takes the odds to (19/1)*(0.10/0.56) = 3.4/1. (22.7% probability).


A 2009 academic study by Michael F. Hammer, Doron M. Behar, et al. examined more STR markers in order to sharpen the "resolution" of these Kohanim genetic markers, thus separating both Ashkenazi and other Jewish Kohanim from other populations, and identifying a more sharply defined SNP haplogroup, ] (now J1c3, also called J-P58*) for the J1 lineage. The research found "that 46.1% of Kohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora. Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%) and its precipitous drop in frequency as one moves away from Saudi Arabia and the Near East (Fig. 4). Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the relatively high frequency of J-58* in Jewish populations (»20%) and Kohanim (»46%) and its vanishingly low frequency in our sample of non-Jewish populations that hosted Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Near East."<ref name="Hammer2009">{{cite journal |last1=Hammer |first1=M. F. |last2=Behar |first2=D. M. |last3=Karafet |first3=T. M. |last4=Mendez |first4=F. L. |last5=Hallmark |first5=B. |last6=Erez |first6=T. |last7=Zhivotovsky |first7=L. A. |last8=Rosset |first8=S. |last9=Skorecki |first9=K. |title=Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood |journal=] |volume=126 |issue=5 |pages=707–17 |date=November 2009 |pmid=19669163 |pmc=2771134 |doi=10.1007/s00439-009-0727-5}}</ref> The authors state, in their "Abstract" to the article:
Even a full 6/6 match for the 6 marker CMH thus cannot "prove" Cohen ancestry. It can only somewhat strengthen a previously existing belief. But for populations where the background probability assessment of shared Cohen ancestry must be vanishingly low, such as almost all non-Jews, even a full 6/6 match makes only a small difference. For individuals in such populations the CMH likely indicates Haplogroup J, but a completely different ancestry to the Cohanim.
:"These results support the hypothesis of a common origin of the CMH in the Near East well before the dispersion of the Jewish people into separate communities, and indicate that the majority of contemporary Jewish priests descend from a limited number of paternal lineages."


However, the study did not support a single Y-chromosomal Aaron from the biblical period, rather it showed a "limited number of paternal lineages" from around that period.<ref name="Miller2015" /><ref name="Relethford2018" /> Subsequent analysis found that even the "extended Cohen Modal Haplotype" probably split off from an older Cohen haplotype far more recently, less than 1,500 years ago.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Klyosov |first=Anatole A. |author-link=Anatole Klyosov |title=A comment on the paper: 'Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Priesthood' by M. F. Hammer, D. M. Behar, T. M. Karafet, F. L. Mendez, B. Hallmark, T. Erez, L. A. Zhivotovsky, S. Rosset, K. Skorecki, ''Hum. Genet.'', published online 8 August 2009 |journal=] |volume=126 |issue=5 |pages=719–24; author reply 725–6 |date=November 2009 |pmid=19813025 |doi=10.1007/s00439-009-0739-1 |quote=A common ancestor of all 99 Cohanim lived 1,075 ±130 ybp, and this timing is reproducible for 9-, 12-, 17-, 22- and 67-marker haplotypes. A much higher values of 3,190 ±1,090 and 3,000 ±1,500 ybp were obtained in the cited paper (Hammer et al. 2009) using incorrect methods and incorrect mutation rates. A common ancestor of all the 99 J1e* Cohanim lived around the tenth century AD... An emphasis of the cited paper on the conclusion that ''an extended CMH on the J1e*-P58* background that …is remarkably absent in non-Jews'' and having ''the estimated divergence time of this lineage…3,190 ±1,090 years'' is incorrect regarding the divergence time. It is more understandable why the lineage originated only 1,075 ±130 years ago is ''remarkably absent in non-Jews''}}</ref><ref name="Weitzman2019" />
== Higher resolution ==


==Kohanim in other haplogroups==
The discussion above applies to the so far published scientific papers. However, in principle some more resolution could be obtained by determining the Cohen haplogroup more narrowly, and/or testing more Y-STR markers to determine whether there is an ''extended'' characteristic Cohen haplotype.
Behar's 2003 data<ref name="Behar2003" /> point to the following Haplogroup distribution for Ashkenazi Kohanim (AC) and Sephardic Kohanim (SC) as a whole:


:{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; font-size:90%"
=== Haplogroup placement ===
!Hg:||]||]||]||]||]||]||]||]||]|| ||Total
The largest population of Kohanim which most closely match the Cohen haplotype cluster are believed to belong to subgroup ] of haplogroup J.<ref>The private company FTDNA has indicated that the CMH Kohanim cluster is associated with J1 rather than J2. Although as of March 2007 no scientific paper has yet been published disclosing their full data, the conclusion matches a clustering of Cohen-type names close to in very much more limited data from various sources that ''are'' publicly accessible.</ref>
|- style="border-top:2px solid grey"
! AC
| 3||0||1||0||67||2||0||1||2|| ||76
|- style="border-bottom:2px solid grey"
!
| 4%|| ||1½%|| ||88%||2½%|| ||1½%||2½%|| ||100%
|-
! SC
| 3||1||0||1||52||2||2||3||4|| ||68
|-
!
| 4½%||1½%|| ||1½%||76%||3%||3%||4½%||6%|| ||100%
|}


The detailed breakdown by 6-marker haplotype (the paper's Table B, available only online) suggests that at least some of these groups (e.g. E3b, R1b) contain more than one distinct Kohen lineage. It is possible that other lineages may also exist, but were not captured in the sample.
Individuals with the genetic Cohen Modal Haplotype can be found in subgroup ] as well, and occasionally in more genealogically distant haplogroups too; however these are not closely related to the cluster in Haplogroup J1.


Hammer et al. (2009) identified Cohanim from diverse backgrounds, having in all 21 differing Y-chromosome haplogroups: E-M78, E-M123, G-M285, G-P15, G-M377, H-M69, I-M253, J-P58, J-M172*, J-M410*, J-M67, J-M68, J-M318, J-M12, L-M20, Q-M378, R-M17, R-P25*, R-M269, R-M124 AND T-M70.<ref name="Hammer2009" />
The subdivision of J2 which most closely matches the genetic signature of the J1 Cohens is subclade J2a1b, a large fraction of members of which will also have a 6/6 match for the 6-marker CMH. However, this is an example of ]:
<!-- WP:OR
Basically the haplotype "distribution" within one lineage (Haplogroup) overlaps with the haplotype "distribution" of another lineage - its like overlapping branches from two different trees.
==Meaning of the findings==
The more likely reason for the match is convergence (coincidence) or because sharing a common haplotype in the same lineage (Haplogroup). Convergence: Mutation is a random process and over thousands of years can occur in different lines so that by coincidence different "lines" end up with "matching" haplotypes. This accidental agreement is called convergence. (The more markers that are tested, the less likely it is that convergence will be observed).
of different genetic lines, which it is believed have been not been closely related for at least the last 10,000 years; the group in J2a1b who have the 6-marker CMH are devoid of any Cohen traditions in their families.<ref name="Schrack">{{cite web|last = Schrack | first = Bonnie | url = http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2007-04/1176477472 | title = Cohen does not equal CMH,CMH does not equal Cohen -- only in J1 do they coincide | publisher = GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives | date = 13 April 2007 | accessdate = 2007-04-15}}</ref>


The findings of Skoretzki et al. and later investigations do ''not'' provide evidence that the Cohanim are descendants of one man. To the contrary, the discovery of several different Y-chromosomal haplotypes among Cohanim, of which the ''Cohen modal haplotype'' is only the most frequent, proves the existence of more than one patrilineal lineage.
On the other hand, there are families in Haplogroup J2 who ''do'' have a Cohen religious tradition and are proud of it (as there are in several other haplogroups, including Haplogroup R1b). The haplotypes of these Haplotype J2 Kohanim cluster in a unique, small offshoot of J2a1*, close to haplotypes of the J2a1k clade, not the J2a1b clade.<ref name="Schrack" /> These J2 Kohanim typically have a 4/6 match for the 6-marker CMH (with DYS19=15 rather than 14, and DYS388=15 rather than 16).
Modern genetic testing and research have advanced the understanding of Jewish ancestry. J-Z18256 is now widely used to trace Kohanic lineage with high accuracy, complementing traditional markers like the 12-marker Cohen Modal Haplotype.


The results do, however, show that the distribution of the various haplotypes is significantly different among Cohanim than among non-Cohanim Jews. This indicates that the priests - or, more precisely: their paternal ancestors - have had a relatively controlled pattern of intermarriage within a small group.
It was characterized Y-Chromossome-specif variation at six micro-satellites (repeats of short nucleode sequences) as a 'Unique-Event Polymorphism' in a sample of new 306 male jews from Israel, Canada, EUA, and United Kingdom. It was found 112 different compound haplotypes. Despite extensive diversity among Israelites (jews), a single (1) haplotype (Cohen Unique-Event Polymorphism) was found and it is strikingly frequent in both Ashenazic and Sephardic Cohanim(J1,J2). It is useful to define a Cohen Modal Cluster of related chromosomes as the Cohen modal haplotype and 'all of its one-mutation neighbours at the microsatellite loci', wich 'all share the same Cohen' Unique-Event Pholymorphism (UEP). Given the isolation of Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities, the presence of the same Cohen Unique Event Polymorphism in the Cohanim of both communities indicates a common orign. It is interesting, therefore, to estimate the righ time at wich Cohen chromossomes were derived from a commom ancestral chromossome (coalescence time). Under stepwise mutations, the average squared difference (ASD) in allele size among all current chromossome and the ancestral haplotype, averaged over loci, has an expectation of T, where is the mutation rate and T the coalescence time. Taking the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Communities as a whole, the value for ASD is 0.2226. Assuming a mutation rate of 0.0021, this gives a estimate of 106 generations time of 25 (30) years gives an estimate of 2,619 (3,180) years before present, dating the coalescence of the Cohanim chromossomes to between the Exodus and the destruction of the first Temple in 586 BC. Estimates based on the Ashkenazic and Sephardic samples taken separately are 2,619 (3,142) and 2,684 (3,221) years before present, respectively. To obtain confidence intervals on the distance between the ancestral and sampled chromossomes, I noted that most non-ancestral haplotypes are singletons, indicating that the genealogy connecting Cohen chromossomes is more like the star genealogy characteristic of rapid growth than the correlated genalogy characteristic of constant size populations. To obtain confidence intervals in this case, (M) mutations occur during the 106 generations, with (M) being a Poisson random variable with parameter 106. The number of mutations increasing allele size (D) is drawn from a binomial distribution with parameters 0.5 and (M) leading to the distance D (2dm). In a star genealogy, we have 485 (the number of loci multiplied by the sample size) observations of D. Confidence intervals are obtained by repeating this process 1,000 times and taking the associated 2.5 and 97.5 pecentiles, leading to a 95% confidence interval of 84-130 generations for the combined Ashkenazic and Sephardic samples or for a generations time of 25 years, only 2,100-3,250 years before present. The 95% confidence interval places the origin of priestly Y-Chromossomes sometime during or shortly before the first Temple period in Jewish history (2,100-3,250).


According to the Torah, the Cohanim were among the uppermost aristocracy in the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Not only were they the religious and spiritual leaders of the Jews, they also served as political figures: judges, military commanders, and the closest advisors to the king.
===More detailed Cohen haplotypes===


That the members of the aristocratic ruling class show a pattern of intermarriage among themselves is not unusual. During the Roman Empire, the population of what is now Spain was mainly Iberic, whereas the nobility was Roman. When the Empire fell, Germanic (Visigoth) invaders took over control of the territory. Since that time, Spain's nobility has largely descended from male Visigoths and their Iberic consorts.
In the table below, the first line gives the original 6 marker Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH-6), which was the basis for the original published papers. The second gives an extended 12 marker haplotype (CMH-12) informally released by the private company ], based on further work by much of the same research team. It has not yet been peer group reviewed by other scientists or published in the open technical literature.


In what is today France, a predominantly Celtic population was ruled by Roman and later Germanic (Frankish) nobility.
The next sequence of rows identify other 6-marker haplotypes in haplogroup J found to occur more than once in the sample of 145 Cohanim tested in Behar et al (2003)<ref name="Behar2003" /> (table B (web-only) in that paper). Probable extensions of these haplotypes to 12 markers are shown, where it has been possible to find corresponding clusters of Cohen-type names in publicly accessible DNA databases, together with the apparent sub-clade of haplogroup J. This is more possible for the apparently Ashkenazi clusters than for Sephardis, who are much less strongly represented in the databases.


England, originally inhabited by Celts, was invaded and ruled by Germanic tribes (Angles and Jutes) from northern Europe. Later Norman conquerors came from the North of France, with waves of invasion also from Scandinavia. In North Africa, a small nobility of Arabs ruled over a population of Berbers throughout the middle ages.
:{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; font-size: 90%"
<!--:{| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 0.5em 1em 0.5em 0; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 90%"
--> -->
! Hg || Clade or cluster<ref name="Y-DNA-J">Nomenclature and analogues from {{cite web | last = Schrack | first = B | coauthors = Schweitzer, J | title = The Y-Haplogroup J DNA Project | url = http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-DNA_J/index.aspx?fixed_columns=on | publisher = FTDNA.com | accessdate = 2007-04-24}}</ref> || ]<br>393 || DYS<br>390 || DYS<br>19 || DYS<br>391 || DYS<br>385a || DYS<br>385b || DYS<br>426 || DYS<br>388 || DYS<br>439 || DYS<br>389i || DYS<br>392 || DYS<br>389ii || || AC<ref name ="Behar2003" /> || SC<ref name ="Behar2003" /> || Some DNA<br> matches
|- style="border-top:2px solid grey;"
|| &nbsp; || CMH-6 || 12 || 23 || 14 || 10 || &nbsp; || &nbsp; || &nbsp; || 16 || &nbsp; || &nbsp; || 11 || &nbsp; || &nbsp; || &nbsp; ||
|- style="border-bottom:2px solid grey;"
|| '''J1''' || CMH-12 || '''12''' || '''23''' || '''14''' || '''10''' || 13 || 15 || 11 || '''16''' || 12 || 13 || '''11''' || 30 || || 47% || 52% ||
|-
|| '''J2''' || J2a1* || '''12''' || '''23''' || style="background:#FFFFAA" | '''15''' || '''10''' || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 14 || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 17 || 11 || '''16''' || 12 || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 14 || '''11''' || 30 || || 13% || 0 ||
|-
|| '''J2''' || J2b || '''12''' || style="background:#FFFFAA" | '''24''' || style="background:#FFFFAA" | '''15''' || '''10''' || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 15 || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 17 || 11 || style="background:#FFFFAA" | '''15''' || 12 || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 12 || '''11''' || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 29 || || 11% || 0 ||
|-
|| '''J2''' || J2a1* "pre-k" || '''12''' || '''23''' || style="background:#FFFFAA" | '''15''' || '''10''' || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 14 || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 17 || 11 || style="background:#FFFFAA" | '''15''' || 12 || 13 || '''11''' || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 29 || || 5% || 0 ||
|-
|| '''J2''' || J2a1k || '''12''' || style="background:#FFFFAA" | '''24''' || style="background:#FFFFAA" | '''15''' || style="background:#FFFFAA" | '''9''' || &nbsp; || &nbsp; || &nbsp; || '''16''' || &nbsp; || 13 || '''11''' || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 29 || || 0 || 6% ||
|- style="border-bottom:2px solid grey;"
|| '''J1''' || J1 "388=13" || '''12''' || '''23''' || '''14''' || '''10''' || &nbsp; || &nbsp; || &nbsp; || style="background:#FFFFAA" | '''13''' || &nbsp; || &nbsp; || '''11''' || &nbsp; || || 0 || 6% ||
|-
|| '''J1''' || modal || 12 || 23 || 14 || 10 || 13 || 15 || 11 || 16 || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 11 || 13 || 11 || 30 || || &nbsp; || &nbsp; ||
|-
|| '''J2''' || modal || 12 || 23 || 14 || 10 || 13 || 15 || 11 || style="background:#FFFFAA" | 15 || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 11 || 13 || 11 || 30 || &nbsp; || &nbsp; ||
|-
|| '''J2''' || J2a1b || 12 || 23 || 14 || 10 || 13 || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 17 || 11 || 16 || style="background:#EEEEEE" | 11 || 13 || 11 || 30 || || || ||
|-
|}


==Y-chromosomal Levi==
Finally, for comparison, the 12-marker modal haplotypes for the haplogroups J1 and J2 are also shown. It is apparent that in both cases, their haplotype clusters are also centred very close to the Cohen modal haplotype. However, because of the much greater time that has elapsed since the mutations occurred that define the haplogroups, there has been much more time for Y-STR mutations to build up; so, although they have almost the same centre as the Cohen cluster, the J1 and J2 haplotype clusters are much more diffusely spread out. Thus although the CMH-6 is also very near to the most probable haplotype for both J1 and J2, its occurrence frequency is only about 1 to 8% amongst arbitrary members of haplogroup J with no particular Cohen connection.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}
Similar investigation was made of males who identify as ]s. The priestly ] are believed to have descended from ] (among those who believe he was a historical figure). He was a descendant of ], son of ]. The Levites comprised a lower rank of the Temple priests. They are considered descendants of Levi through other lineages. Levites should also therefore in theory share common Y-chromosomal DNA.
However, similar studies into Levite origins found the Levite genome to be significantly less homogeneous. While commonalities were found within the Ashkenazi-Levite genome (R1a-Y2619), no haplotype frequently common to Levites in general was found.<ref name="Ostrer2012" /><ref name="Falk2015">{{cite journal |last=Falk |first=R. |title=Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent |journal=] |volume=5 |pages=462 |date=21 January 2015 |pmid=25653666 |pmc=4301023 |doi=10.3389/fgene.2014.00462 |quote=No haplotype frequently common to Levites was found |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Falk2017">{{cite book |last=Falk |first=R. |title=Zionism and the Biology of Jews |date=2017 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3-319-57345-8 |pages=186, 183–188 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=s4otDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA186 |quote=interest in the Cohanim (and Levites) has gained new momentum as an instrument for proof of the common origins of the current Jewish ethnic groups in the population of the Land of Israel two thousand years ago, as narrated in the biblical story... These results appear to be a striking confirmation of the oral tradition). However, not all data accorded with these findings... Although no haplotype frequently common to Levites was found, a cluster of haplotypes with a high degree of relatedness was found among the Ashkenazi Levites... According to Kevin Brook.. the Ashkenazi variety of R1a1 comes from the Asian continental branch, the origins of which are believed to be in ancient Iran rather than in the European branch of the Slavic Belarusians Sorbs... Behar and his associates... point out, however, that the Levite cluster of the R-M17 haplotype is very common in non-Jewish populations of North Eastern Europe. It is reasonable to assume that the origin of the Jewish haplotypes is in non-Jewish Europeans, some of whose male progeny acquired the name (and status) of Levites.}}</ref> Additionally, the haplotype that was commonly found in Ashkenazi Levites is of a relatively recent origin from a single common ancestor estimated to have lived around 1.5–2.5 thousand years ago.<ref name="Ostrer2012" /><ref name="Behar2003" /><ref name="Nebel2005" /> Also, when further compared to the most frequent founding lineage found among Ashkenazi Cohen males,<ref>According to the Torah, Aaron was a great-grandson of Levi, so Kohanim and Levites should share a male ancestor within the time frame of the Biblical narrative.</ref> it was found that they do not share a common male ancestor within the time frame of the Biblical narrative.<ref name="Behar2017" /> Finally, it is unclear whether the origin is Eastern Europe or the greater Middle East region (including Iran);<ref name="Falk2017" /> however, the most recent findings indicate the latter.


The 2003 Behar et al. investigation of Levites found high frequencies of multiple distinct markers, suggestive of multiple origins for the majority of non-Aaronid Levite families. One marker, however, present in more than 50% of ] (]) Jewish Levites, points to a common male ancestor or very few male ancestors within the last 2000 years for many Levites of the Ashkenazi community. This common ancestor belonged to the ], which is typical of Eastern Europeans or West Asians, rather than the haplogroup J of the Cohen modal haplotype. The authors proposed that the Levite ancestor(s) most likely lived at the time of the Ashkenazi settlement in Eastern Europe, and would thus be considered founders of this line.<ref name="Behar2003" /><ref name="Behar2004">{{cite journal |last1=Behar |first=D. M. |last2=Garrigan |first2=D. |last3=Kaplan |first3=M. E. |last4=Mobasher |first4=Z. |last5=Rosengarten |first5=D. |last6=Karafet |first6=T. M. |last7=Quintana-Murci |first7=L. |last8=Ostrer |first8=H. |last9=Skorecki |first9=K. |last10=Hammer |first10=M. F. |title=Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome variation in Ashkenazi Jewish and host non-Jewish European populations |journal=] |volume=114 |issue=4 |pages=354–65 |date=March 2004 |pmid=14740294 |doi=10.1007/s00439-003-1073-7 |url= http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Behar_contrasting.pdf |access-date=27 January 2007 |url-status=dead |s2cid=10310338 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20111110093942/http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Behar_contrasting.pdf |archive-date=10 November 2011}}</ref><ref name="Nebel2005">{{cite journal |last1=Nebel |first1=A. |last2=Filon |first2=D. |last3=Faerman |first3=M. |last4=Soodyall |first4=H. |last5=Oppenheim |first5=A. |title=Y chromosome evidence for a founder effect in Ashkenazi Jews |journal=] |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=388–91 |date=March 2005 |pmid=15523495 |doi=10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201319 |s2cid=1466556 |doi-access=free}}</ref><!-- also at<ref>http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/Nebel%20_2005.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref> --> further speculating that the ancestor(s) were unlikely to have descended from Levites of the Near East.
==Other carriers of the DNA==
Critics of the theory point out that the Cohen Modal Haplotype has also been found in significant numbers in groups of non-Jews, notably ]. However proponents of the theory are quick to explain these anomalies. They state that history records the ] of large numbers of Jews to ] who married and took part in building the ].


However, a Rootsi, Behar, et al. study published online in ''Nature Communications'' in December 2013 disputed the previous conclusion. Based on its research into 16 whole R1 sequences, the team determined that a set of 19 unique nucleotide substitutions defines the Ashkenazi R1a lineage. One of these is not found among Eastern Europeans, but the marker was present "in all sampled R1a Ashkenazi Levites, as well as in 33.8% of other R1a Ashkenazi Jewish males, and 5.9% of 303 R1a Near Eastern males, where it shows considerably higher diversity."<ref name="rootsi" /> Rootsi, Behar, et al., concluded that this marker most likely originates in the pre-Diasporic Hebrews in the Middle East. However, they agreed that the data indicates an origin from a single common ancestor.<ref name="rootsi">, ''Nature Communications'' 4, Article number: 2928 (2013) doi:10.1038/ncomms3928, published online 13 December 2013; accessed 4 October 2016</ref>
However, the Cohen Haplotype has also been found among significant numbers of non-Jewish Arab and Kurdish populations. Although this too could be explained in part by ], assimilation, and conversionsh There is an alternate possibility that the marker precedes all of these populations and is a precursor to some common ancestral group.


==Samaritan Kohanim==
===Lemba===
The ] community in the Middle East survives as a distinct religious and cultural sect. It constitutes the oldest and smallest ethnic minorities in the Middle East, numbering slightly more than 800 members. According to Samaritan accounts, Samaritan Kohanim are descended from ], the Tsedaka clan is descended from ], while the Dinfi clan and the Marhiv clan are descended from ].<ref>{{cite book |last=Brindle |first=J. D. |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Kwl2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA275 |title=The Samaritans in Historical, Cultural and Linguistic Perspectives |date=8 October 2018 |publisher=Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG |isbn=9783110617306}}</ref> Samaritans claim that the southern tribes of the ] left the original worship as set forth by Joshua, and the schism took place in the twelfth century BCE at the time of Eli.<ref>{{cite web |last=Brindle |first=W. A. |date=1984 |url= https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/gtj-nt/brindle-samaritans-gtj.htm |title=The Origin and History of the Samaritans}}</ref> The Samaritans have maintained their religion and history to this day, and claim to be the remnant of the ], specifically of the tribes of ] and ] with priests of the line of ]/].
The Cohen Modal Haplotype has also been found in the ] of ], who have a tradition of Jewish ancestry (Thomas MG ''et al'' 2000)<ref name="Thomas2000">{{cite journal | last = Thomas | first = MG | coauthors = Parfitt T, Weiss DA, Skorecki K, Wilson JF, le Roux M, Bradman N, Goldstein DB | year = 2000 | url = http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v66n2/990488/990488.html | title = Y chromosomes traveling south: the Cohen modal haplotype and the origins of the Lemba--the "Black Jews of Southern Africa" | journal = Am. J. Hum. Genet. | volume = 66 | pages = 674-86 | id = PMID 10677325}}</ref>.


Since the Samaritans have maintained extensive and detailed genealogical records for the past 13–15 generations (approximately 400 years) and further back, researchers have constructed accurate pedigrees and specific maternal and paternal lineages. A 2004 Y-Chromosome study concluded that the lay Samaritans belong to haplogroups J1 and J2, while the Samaritan Kohanim belong to haplogroup E-M35.<ref name="Shen et al 2004" />
===Kurds===
{{Main|Genetic origins of the Kurds}}
The Cohen Modal Haplotype has also been found in some groups of ]. There are a number of ].<ref>], , ''Netewe'', January 19, 2002.</ref>


"The Samaritan M267 lineages differed from the classical Cohen modal haplotype at DYS391, carrying 11 rather than 10 repeats", as well as, have a completely different haplogroup, which should have been "J1". Samaritan Kohanim descend from a different patrilineal family line, having haplogroup ] (formerly E3b1a).<ref name="Shen et al 2004">{{cite journal |last1=Shen |first1=P. |last2=Lavi |first2=T. |last3=Kivisild |first3=T. |last4=Chou |first4=V |last5=Sengun |first5=D. |last6=Gefel |first6=D. |last7=Shpirer |first7=I. |last8=Woolf |first8=E. |last9=Hillel |first9=J. |last10=Feldman |first10=M. W. |last11=Oefner |first11=P. J. |title=Reconstruction of patrilineages and matrilineages of Samaritans and other Israeli populations from Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA sequence variation |journal=] |volume=24 |issue=3 |pages=248–60 |date=September 2004 |pmid=15300852 |doi=10.1002/humu.20077 |s2cid=1571356}}</ref>
==Y-chromosomal Levi?==

A similar investigation was made with men who consider themselves ]s. Whereas the priestly ] are considered descendants of ], who in turn was a descendant of ], son of ], the Levites (a lower rank of the Temple) are considered descendants of Levi through other lineages. Levites should also therefore share common Y-chromosomal DNA.

The investigation of Levites found high frequencies of multiple distinct markers, suggestive of multiple origins for the majority of non-Aaronid Levite families. One marker, however, present in more than 50% of ] (]) Jewish Levites points to a common male ancestor or very few male ancestors within the last 2000 years for many Levites of the Ashkenazi community. This common ancestor belonged to the haplogroup ] which is typical of Eastern Europeans, rather than the haplogroup J of the Cohen modal haplotype, and most likely lived at the time of the Ashkenazi settlement in Eastern Europe. <ref name=Behar2003 /><ref name=Behar2004>{{cite journal | last = Behar | first = DM | coauthors = Garrigan D, Kaplan ME, Mobasher Z, Rosengarten D, Karafet TM, Quintana-Murci L, Ostrer H, Skorecki K, Hammer MF | year = 2004 | url = http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Behar_contrasting.pdf | title = Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome variation in Ashkenazi Jewish and host non-Jewish European populations | journal = Hum. Genet. | volume = 114 | pages = 354–365 | id = PMID 14740294}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last = Nebel | first = A | coauthors = Filon D, Faerman M, Soodyall H, Oppenheim A | year = 2004 | url = http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n3/abs/5201319a.html | title = Y chromosome evidence for a founder effect in Ashkenazi Jews | journal = European Journal of Human Genetics | volume = 13 | issue = 3 | pages = 388-91 | id = PMID 15523495}}<!-- also at --></ref>.

The E3b1 haplogroup has been observed in all Jewish groups world wide.
It is considered to be the second most prevalent haplogroup among the Jewish population. According to one major paper, http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Behar_contrasting.pdf.
It has also been observed in moderate numbers among individuals from Ashkenazi, Sephardic and ] backgrounds that contain the E3b1 haplogroup, having a tradition of descending from the tribe of Levi, suggesting that the E3b1 Levites may have existed in Israel before the Diaspora of 70 C.E.

The Samaritan community is a small, isolated, and highly endogamous group today numbering some 650 members who have maintained extensive genealogical records for the past 13–15 generations. Since the Samaritans maintain extensive and detailed genealogical records, it is possible to construct accurate pedigrees and specific maternal and paternal lineages. The Samaritan community in the Middle East survives as a distinct religious and cultural sect and constitutes one of the oldest and smallest ethnic minorities in the world. Y-Chromosome studies have shown that the majority of Samaritans belong to haplogroups J1 and J2 while the Samaritan Cohanim belong to haplogroup E3b1a.<ref>{{cite journal | last = Shen | first = P | coauthors = Lavi T, Kivisild T, Chou V, Sengun D, Gefel D, Shpirer I, Woolf E, Hillel J, Feldman MW, Oefner PJ | year = 2004 | url = http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Shen2004.pdf | title = Reconstruction of Patrilineages and Matrilineages of Samaritans and Other Israeli Populations From Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Variation | journal = Human Mutation | volume = 24 | pages = 248-260 | id = PMID 15300852}}</ref>. In 1623-1624 the last member of the high-priestly family, which claimed descent from the eldest son of Aaron, died. The office was then given to the junior branch, descended from Uzziel, the son of Kohath. Since that date the priest has called himself "ha-kohen ha-Lewi," (Heb. "The Levite Priest") instead of "ha-kohen ha-gadol" (Heb. "The High Priest") as in previous times. The approximately 650 individuals comprising the total group of present day Samaritans trace their ancestry over a period of more than 2,000 years to the Biblical Israelite tribes of Ephraim, Menashe and Levi. As a religious sect, the Samaritans broke away from the main stream of Judaism around the fifth century B.C.E.


== See also == == See also ==
*] * ]
* ]
*]
*] * ]
*]


==References== == References ==
{{Reflist}}
<div class="references-small">
<references />
* Elkins, JE et al (2005). "An Updated World-Wide Characterization of the Cohen Modal Haplotype". ASHG meeting October 2005 ()
</div>


==External links== == External links ==
{{div col}}
*
*
*
* http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpE08.html
* (])
*
* (])
{{div col end}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Y-Chromosomal Aaron}}
]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
]

]
]

Latest revision as of 03:45, 28 December 2024

Hypothesized most recent common ancestor of the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as Kohanim

Y-chromosomal Aaron is the name given to the hypothesized most recent common ancestor of the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as Kohanim (singular Kohen, also spelled Cohen). According to the traditional understanding of the Hebrew Bible, this ancestor was Aaron, the brother of Moses. A historical-critical reading of the biblical text suggests that the origin of the priesthood could have been much more complex, and that for much if not all of the First Temple period, Kohen may have not (necessarily) been synonymous with "Aaronide". Rather, this traditional identity seems to have been adopted sometime around the Second Temple period.

The original scientific research was based on the hypothesis that a majority of present-day Jewish Kohanim share a pattern of values for six Y-STR markers, which researchers named the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). Subsequent research using twelve Y-STR markers indicated that nearly half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim shared Y-chromosomal J1 M267 (specifically haplogroup J-P58, also called J1c3), while other Kohanim share a different ancestry, such as haplogroup J2a (J-M410).

While these genetic studies were seen as possibly supporting the traditional biblical narrative, subsequent research (by the original researchers and others) has challenged this conclusion in a number of ways and has in fact shown that the genealogical record "refutes the idea of a single founder for Jewish Cohanim who lived in Biblical times", and rather "seems to vindicate the historical-critical hypothesis of competing priestly clans."

Background

Further information: Molecular clock and Who is a Jew?

For human beings, the normal number of chromosomes is 46, of which 23 are inherited from each parent. Two chromosomes, the X and Y, determine sex. Females have two X chromosomes, one inherited from each of their parents. Males have an X chromosome inherited from their mother, and a Y chromosome inherited from their father.

Males who share a common patrilineal ancestor also share a common Y chromosome, diverging only with respect to accumulated mutations. Since Y-chromosomes are passed from father to son, all Kohanim men should theoretically have nearly identical Y chromosomes; this can be assessed with a genealogical DNA test. As the mutation rate on the Y chromosome is relatively constant, scientists can estimate the elapsed time since two men had a common ancestor.

Although Jewish identity has traditionally (according to rabbinic-Jewish law I.E. since around the 1st century CE) been passed by matrilineal descent, membership in the Jewish Kohanim caste has been determined by patrilineal descent (see Presumption of priestly descent). Modern Kohanim are traditionally regarded in Judaism as male descendants of biblical Aaron, a direct patrilineal descendant of Abraham, according to the lineage recorded in the Hebrew Bible (שמות / Sh'mot/Exodus 6).

With the development of methods to follow specific DNA sequences of the human genome, interest in the Cohanim (and Levites) has gained new momentum as an instrument for proof of the common origins of the current Jewish ethnic-groups in the population of the Land of Israel two thousand years ago, as narrated in the biblical story. Skorecki, who carried out the initial study, told the journalist Jon Entine, "I was interested in the question: To what extent was our shared oral tradition matched by other evidence?"

Initial study

The Kohen hypothesis was first tested through DNA analysis in 1997 by Karl Skorecki and collaborators from Haifa, Israel. In their study, "Y chromosomes of Jewish priests", published in the journal Nature, they found that the Kohanim appeared to share a different probability distribution compared to the rest of the Jewish population for the two Y-chromosome markers they tested (YAP and DYS19). They also found that the probabilities appeared to be shared by both Sephardic and Ashkenazi Kohens, pointing to a common Kohen population origin before the Jewish diaspora at the destruction of the Second Temple. However, this study also indicated that only 48% of Ashkenazi Kohens and 58% of Sephardic Kohens have the J1 Cohen Modal Haplotype. Such genetic markers were also found in approximately 5% of Jews who did not believe themselves to be kohanim.

In a subsequent study the next year (Thomas MG et al., 1998), the team increased the number of Y-STR markers tested to six, as well as testing more SNP markers. Again, they found that a clear difference was observable between the Kohanim population and the general Jewish population, with many of the Kohen STR results clustered around a single pattern they named the Kohen Modal Haplotype:

  xDE xDE,PR Hg J CMH.1 CMH CMH.1/HgJ CMH/HgJ
Ashkenazi Cohanim (AC): 98.5% 96% 87% 69% 45% 79% 52%
Sephardic Cohanim (SC): 100% 88% 75% 61% 56% 81% 75%
Ashkenazi Jews (AI): 82% 62% 37% 15% 13% 40% 35%
Sephardic Jews (SI): 85% 63% 37% 14% 10% 38% 27%

Here, becoming increasingly specific, xDE is the proportion who were not in Haplogroups D or E (from the original paper); xDE,PR is the proportion who were not in haplogroups D, E, P, Q or R; Hg J is the proportion who were in Haplogroup J (from the slightly larger panel studied by Behar et al. (2003)); CMH.1 means "within one marker of the CMH-6"; and CMH is the proportion with a 6/6 match. The final two columns show the conditional proportions for CMH.1 and CMH, given membership of Haplogroup J.

The data show that the Kohanim were more than twice as likely to belong to Haplogroup J than the average non-Cohen Jew. Of those who did belong to Haplogroup J, the Kohanim were more than twice as likely to have an STR pattern close to the CMH-6, suggesting a much more recent common ancestry for most of them compared to an average non-Kohen Jew of Haplogroup J.

Dating

Thomas, et al. dated the origin of the shared DNA to approximately 3,000 years ago (with variance arising from different generation lengths). The techniques used to find Y-chromosomal Aaron were first popularized in relation to the search for the patrilineal ancestor of all contemporary living humans, Y-chromosomal Adam.

Subsequent calculations under the coalescent model for J1 haplotypes bearing the Cohanim motif gave time estimates that place the origin of this genealogy around 6,200 years ago (95% CI: 4.5–8.6 Kybp), earlier than previously thought, and well before the origin of Judaism (David Kingdom, ~2.0 Kybp).

Responses

The finding led to excitement in religious circles, with some seeing it as providing some proof of the historical veracity of the priestly covenant or other religious convictions.

Following the discovery of the very high prevalence of 6/6 CMH matches amongst Kohanim, other researchers and analysts were quick to look for it. Some groups have taken the presence of this haplotype as indicating possible Jewish ancestry, although the chromosome is not exclusive to Jews. It is widely found among other Semitic peoples of the Middle East.

Early research suggested that the 6/6 matches found among male Lemba of Southern Africa confirmed their oral history of descent from Jews and connection to Jewish culture. Later research has been unable to confirm this (due to the fact that CMH was widely found among other Semitic peoples of the Middle East) although it has shown that some male Lemba have Middle Eastern ancestry.

Critics such as Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin suggested that the paper's evidence was being overstated in terms of showing Jewish descent among these distant populations.

Limitations

Principal components analysis scatterplot of Y-STR haplotypes from Haplogroup J, calculated using 6 STRs. With only six Y-STRs, it is not possible to resolve the different subgroups of Hg J.
Principal components analysis scatterplot of Y-STR haplotypes from Haplogroup J, calculated using 37 STRs. With 37 Y-STR markers, clearly distinct STR clusters can be resolved, matching the distinct J1, J2 and J2b subgroups. The haplotypes often associated with Cohen lineages in each group are highlighted as J1 C37 and J2 C37, respectively.

One source of early confusion was the low resolution of the available tests. The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH), while frequent amongst Kohanim, also appeared in the general populations of haplogroups J1 and J2 with no particular link to the Kohen ancestry. These haplogroups occur widely throughout the Middle East and beyond. Thus, while many Kohanim have haplotypes close to the CMH, a greater number of such haplotypes worldwide belong to people with no apparent connection to the Jewish priesthood.

Individuals with at least 5/6 matches for the original 6-marker Cohen Modal Haplotype are found across the Middle East, with significant frequencies among various Arab populations, mainly those with the J1 Haplogroup. These have not been "traditionally considered admixed with mainstream Jewish populations" – the frequency of the J1 Haplogroup is the following: Yemen (34.2%), Oman (22.8%), Negev (21.9%), and Iraq (19.2%); and amongst Muslim Kurds (22.1%), Bedouins (21.9%), and Armenians (12.7%).

On the other hand, Jewish populations were found to have a "markedly higher" proportion of full 6/6 matches, according to the same (2005) meta-analysis. This was compared to these non-Jewish populations, where "individuals matching at only 5/6 markers are most commonly observed".

The authors Elkins, et al., warned in their report that "using the current CMH definition to infer relation of individuals or groups to the Cohen or ancient Hebrew populations would produce many false-positive results", and noted that "it is possible that the originally defined CMH represents a slight permutation of a more general Middle Eastern type that was established early on in the population prior to the divergence of haplogroup J. Under such conditions, parallel convergence in divergent clades to the same STR haplotype would be possible".

Cadenas et al. analysed Y-DNA patterns from around the Gulf of Oman in more detail in 2007. The detailed data confirm that the main cluster of haplogroup J1 haplotypes from the Yemeni appears to be some genetic distance from the CMH-12 pattern typical of eastern European Ashkenazi Kohanim, but not of Sephardic Kohanim.

Multiple ancestries

While there is evidence from Josephus and rabbinic sources that this tradition existed by the end of the Second Temple (1st century CE, nearly a millennium and a half after the tradition places Aaron), there is no further evidence to support its historicity. According to modern biblical scholarship, a historical-critical reading of the biblical text suggests that the origin of the priesthood is much more complex, and that for much if not all of the First Temple period, kohen was not (necessarily) synonymous with "Aaronide". Rather, this traditional identity seems to have been adopted sometime around the second temple period.

Even within the Jewish Kohen population, it became clear that there were multiple Kohen lineages, including distinctive lineages both in Haplogroup J1 and in haplogroup J2. Other groups of Jewish lineages (i.e. Jews who are non-kohanim) and even non-Jews were found in Haplogroup J2 that matched the original 6-marker CMH, but which were unrelated and not associated with Kohanim. Current estimates, based on the accumulation of SNP mutations, place the defining mutations that distinguish haplogroups J1 and J2 as having occurred about 20 to 30,000 years ago.

Subsequent studies

Subsequent research (by the original researchers and others) has challenged the original conclusion in a number of ways and has in fact shown that the genealogical record "refutes the idea of a single founder for Jewish Cohanim who lived in Biblical times."

A 2009 academic study by Michael F. Hammer, Doron M. Behar, et al. examined more STR markers in order to sharpen the "resolution" of these Kohanim genetic markers, thus separating both Ashkenazi and other Jewish Kohanim from other populations, and identifying a more sharply defined SNP haplogroup, J1e* (now J1c3, also called J-P58*) for the J1 lineage. The research found "that 46.1% of Kohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora. Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%) and its precipitous drop in frequency as one moves away from Saudi Arabia and the Near East (Fig. 4). Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the relatively high frequency of J-58* in Jewish populations (»20%) and Kohanim (»46%) and its vanishingly low frequency in our sample of non-Jewish populations that hosted Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Near East." The authors state, in their "Abstract" to the article:

"These results support the hypothesis of a common origin of the CMH in the Near East well before the dispersion of the Jewish people into separate communities, and indicate that the majority of contemporary Jewish priests descend from a limited number of paternal lineages."

However, the study did not support a single Y-chromosomal Aaron from the biblical period, rather it showed a "limited number of paternal lineages" from around that period. Subsequent analysis found that even the "extended Cohen Modal Haplotype" probably split off from an older Cohen haplotype far more recently, less than 1,500 years ago.

Kohanim in other haplogroups

Behar's 2003 data point to the following Haplogroup distribution for Ashkenazi Kohanim (AC) and Sephardic Kohanim (SC) as a whole:

Hg: E3b G2c H I1b J K2 Q R1a1 R1b Total
AC 3 0 1 0 67 2 0 1 2 76
4% 1½% 88% 2½% 1½% 2½% 100%
SC 3 1 0 1 52 2 2 3 4 68
4½% 1½% 1½% 76% 3% 3% 4½% 6% 100%

The detailed breakdown by 6-marker haplotype (the paper's Table B, available only online) suggests that at least some of these groups (e.g. E3b, R1b) contain more than one distinct Kohen lineage. It is possible that other lineages may also exist, but were not captured in the sample.

Hammer et al. (2009) identified Cohanim from diverse backgrounds, having in all 21 differing Y-chromosome haplogroups: E-M78, E-M123, G-M285, G-P15, G-M377, H-M69, I-M253, J-P58, J-M172*, J-M410*, J-M67, J-M68, J-M318, J-M12, L-M20, Q-M378, R-M17, R-P25*, R-M269, R-M124 AND T-M70.

Y-chromosomal Levi

Similar investigation was made of males who identify as Levites. The priestly Kohanim are believed to have descended from Aaron (among those who believe he was a historical figure). He was a descendant of Levi, son of Jacob. The Levites comprised a lower rank of the Temple priests. They are considered descendants of Levi through other lineages. Levites should also therefore in theory share common Y-chromosomal DNA.

However, similar studies into Levite origins found the Levite genome to be significantly less homogeneous. While commonalities were found within the Ashkenazi-Levite genome (R1a-Y2619), no haplotype frequently common to Levites in general was found. Additionally, the haplotype that was commonly found in Ashkenazi Levites is of a relatively recent origin from a single common ancestor estimated to have lived around 1.5–2.5 thousand years ago. Also, when further compared to the most frequent founding lineage found among Ashkenazi Cohen males, it was found that they do not share a common male ancestor within the time frame of the Biblical narrative. Finally, it is unclear whether the origin is Eastern Europe or the greater Middle East region (including Iran); however, the most recent findings indicate the latter.

The 2003 Behar et al. investigation of Levites found high frequencies of multiple distinct markers, suggestive of multiple origins for the majority of non-Aaronid Levite families. One marker, however, present in more than 50% of Eastern European (Ashkenazi) Jewish Levites, points to a common male ancestor or very few male ancestors within the last 2000 years for many Levites of the Ashkenazi community. This common ancestor belonged to the haplogroup R1a1, which is typical of Eastern Europeans or West Asians, rather than the haplogroup J of the Cohen modal haplotype. The authors proposed that the Levite ancestor(s) most likely lived at the time of the Ashkenazi settlement in Eastern Europe, and would thus be considered founders of this line. further speculating that the ancestor(s) were unlikely to have descended from Levites of the Near East.

However, a Rootsi, Behar, et al. study published online in Nature Communications in December 2013 disputed the previous conclusion. Based on its research into 16 whole R1 sequences, the team determined that a set of 19 unique nucleotide substitutions defines the Ashkenazi R1a lineage. One of these is not found among Eastern Europeans, but the marker was present "in all sampled R1a Ashkenazi Levites, as well as in 33.8% of other R1a Ashkenazi Jewish males, and 5.9% of 303 R1a Near Eastern males, where it shows considerably higher diversity." Rootsi, Behar, et al., concluded that this marker most likely originates in the pre-Diasporic Hebrews in the Middle East. However, they agreed that the data indicates an origin from a single common ancestor.

Samaritan Kohanim

The Samaritan community in the Middle East survives as a distinct religious and cultural sect. It constitutes the oldest and smallest ethnic minorities in the Middle East, numbering slightly more than 800 members. According to Samaritan accounts, Samaritan Kohanim are descended from Levi, the Tsedaka clan is descended from Manasseh, while the Dinfi clan and the Marhiv clan are descended from Ephraim. Samaritans claim that the southern tribes of the House of Judah left the original worship as set forth by Joshua, and the schism took place in the twelfth century BCE at the time of Eli. The Samaritans have maintained their religion and history to this day, and claim to be the remnant of the House of Israel, specifically of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh with priests of the line of Aaron/Levi.

Since the Samaritans have maintained extensive and detailed genealogical records for the past 13–15 generations (approximately 400 years) and further back, researchers have constructed accurate pedigrees and specific maternal and paternal lineages. A 2004 Y-Chromosome study concluded that the lay Samaritans belong to haplogroups J1 and J2, while the Samaritan Kohanim belong to haplogroup E-M35.

"The Samaritan M267 lineages differed from the classical Cohen modal haplotype at DYS391, carrying 11 rather than 10 repeats", as well as, have a completely different haplogroup, which should have been "J1". Samaritan Kohanim descend from a different patrilineal family line, having haplogroup E1b1b1a (M78) (formerly E3b1a).

See also

References

  1. ^ Leuchter, M. (2019). "How All Kohanim Became 'Sons of Aaron'". TheTorah.com.
  2. ^ Miller, Y. S. (2015). Sacred Slaughter: The Discourse of Priestly Violence as Refracted Through the Zeal of Phinehas in the Hebrew Bible and in Jewish Literature (PDF) (PhD). Harvard University. pp. 8–17. Skorecki's study generated much excitement in the wider Jewish community, as it was seen as vindicating at least one aspect of the historicity of the Hebrew Bible .... ecent research on the Cohen Modal Haplotype seems to vindicate the historical-critical hypothesis of competing priestly clans
  3. ^ *"Priests and Priesthood". Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 16 (2nd ed.). Macmillan Reference USA. 2007. pp. 514–515, 513–516, 513–526. the first priests were not necessarily from the levite tribe, though several dynasties of priests did descend from this tribe ... n the temples the right to officiate as priests was reserved for specific families which generally traced their lineage to the tribe of Levi.
    • Weitzman, S. (2017). "DNA and the Origin of the Jews". TheTorah.com. We do not know if Aaron actually existed, but there is evidence from Josephus and rabbinic sources that priestly status was transmitted from father to son in the time of the Second Temple and the following centuries.
    • Frankel, D. (2019). "The Flowering Staff: Proof of Aaron's or the Levites' Election?". TheTorah.com. Originally, however, the story presented YHWH's selection of the tribe of Levi as his priestly caste .... According to this verse (see also Deut 18:1-8; 33:8-10), YHWH chose the entire tribe of Levi from all the other tribes to serve as priests before him .... Num 17 ... presented the Levites, not the Aaronides, as the chosen priests.
    • Levine, E. (2015). "The Historical Circumstances that Inspired the Korah Narrative". TheTorah.com. .... the historical process by which the Aaronides became a separate class among the Levites and superior to them .... Deuteronomy, for example, does not seem to differentiate priests from Levites .... No separate group of kohanim seems to exist, nor is the priesthood associated with Aaron or his descendants in the Deuteronomic corpus.
    • Berlin, A. (2013). "The Levite Rebellion Against The Priesthood: Why Were we demoted?". TheTorah.com. The Korah story reflects part of the history of the growth of the priesthood. Korah's complaint harks back to a recollection that the elevated role of Aaron and his sons was once the role of all Levites.
  4. ^ Thomas, M. G.; Skorecki, K.; Ben-Ami, H.; Parfitt, T.; Bradman, N.; Goldstein, D. B. (July 1998). "Origins of Old Testament priests". Nature. 394 (6689): 138–40. Bibcode:1998Natur.394..138T. doi:10.1038/28083. PMID 9671297. S2CID 4398155.
  5. ^ Hammer, M. F.; Behar, D. M.; Karafet, T. M.; Mendez, F. L.; Hallmark, B.; Erez, T.; Zhivotovsky, L. A.; Rosset, S.; Skorecki, K. (November 2009). "Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood". Human Genetics. 126 (5): 707–17. doi:10.1007/s00439-009-0727-5. PMC 2771134. PMID 19669163.
  6. ^ Ostrer, Harry (2012). Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People. Oxford University Press. pp. 97, 96–101. ISBN 978-0-19-537961-7. This finding generated considerable excitement, because it was taken as evidence of the fidelity of an oral tradition extending over millennia ... it has been discovered this Y-chromosomal set of markers is not unique to Jewish men ... this record refutes the idea of a single founder for Jewish Cohanim who lived in Biblical times .... Y-chromosomal analysis of Levites has demonstrated multiple origins that depend on the Diaspora community from which they came—they are not all the descendants of tribal founder Levi.
  7. Tofanelli, Sergio; Taglioli, Luca; Bertoncini, Stefania; Francalacci, Paolo; Klyosov, Anatole; Pagani, Luca (10 November 2014). "Mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplotype motifs as diagnostic markers of Jewish ancestry: a reconsideration". Frontiers in Genetics. 5: 384. doi:10.3389/fgene.2014.00384. PMC 4229899. PMID 25431579. In conclusion ... the overall substantial polyphyletism as well as their systematic occurrence in non-Jewish groups highlights the lack of support for using them either as markers of Jewish ancestry or Biblical tales.
  8. Elhaik, Eran (2016). "In Search of the jüdische Typus: A Proposed Benchmark to Test the Genetic Basis of Jewishness Challenges Notions of "Jewish Biomarkers"". Frontiers in Genetics. 7: 141. doi:10.3389/fgene.2016.00141. PMC 4974603. PMID 27547215. This reasoning also characterizes the decade old pursuit of "Cohen" and "Levite", markers. Although dispelled on numerous occasions (Zoossmann-Diskin, 2006; Klyosov, 2009; Tofanelli et al., 2009), the pursuit for priestly biomarkers continued relentlessly to this day
  9. Behar, Doron M.; Saag, Lauri; Karmin, Monika; Gover, Meir G.; Wexler, Jeffrey D.; Sanchez, Luisa Fernanda; Greenspan, Elliott; Kushniarevich, Alena; Davydenko, Oleg; Sahakyan, Hovhannes; Yepiskoposyan, Levon; Boattini, Alessio; Sarno, Stefania; Pagani, Luca; Carmi, Shai; Tzur, Shay; Metspalu, Ene; Bormans, Concetta; Skorecki, Karl; Metspalu, Mait; Rootsi, Siiri; Villems, Richard (2 November 2017). "The genetic variation in the R1a clade among the Ashkenazi Levites' Y chromosome". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 14969. Bibcode:2017NatSR...714969B. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-14761-7. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 5668307. PMID 29097670. members of the R1a-Y2619 Levite caste and the J1a-P58 Cohen caste do not share a common male ancestor within the time frame of the Biblical narrative.
  10. Relethford, John H.; Bolnick, Deborah A. (2018). Reflections of Our Past: How Human History Is Revealed in Our Genes. Routledge. p. 208. ISBN 978-0-429-89171-7. In sum, the presence of the J-P58* haplogroup is a marker of Middle Eastern ancestry, and the more specific Extended CMH is a marker of Kohanim ancestry. Of course, many Kohanim have other Y-chromosome haplotypes, so there is not a one-to-one correlation, and there was probably more than one founding male lineage for the Kohanim.
  11. Weitzman, Steven (2019). The Origin of the Jews: The Quest for Roots in a Rootless Age. Princeton University Press. pp. 297–298, 294. ISBN 978-0-691-19165-2. Subsequent research has challenged this conclusion in a number of ways. One big problem is that the Cohen Modal Haplotype is found not only in priests but also among non-Jewish populations in Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. At first there were efforts to suggest such populations might also be descendant from the Hebrews, as in the famous case of the Lemba, an African tribe in Southern Africa (more about them a bit later). But it has since become clear that the original Cohen Modal Haplotype might have been common among Middle Eastern populations, not exclusive to the Jews or their Israelite ancestors ... the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype, the version that is supposed to distinguish Jewish priests, probably split off from an older Cohen haplotype far more recently than earlier geneticists concluded. Beyond the question of when the split occurred, the authors of this study make a larger point: figuring out the right mutation rate to apply is a hotly contested issue; mutation rates are not constant in the real world, and the longer the time span to a common ancestor, the harder it is to pinpoint a distinctive genetic signature or to accurately estimate the amount of time involved.
  12. ^ Falk, R. (2017). Zionism and the Biology of Jews. Springer. pp. 186, 183–188. ISBN 978-3-319-57345-8. interest in the Cohanim (and Levites) has gained new momentum as an instrument for proof of the common origins of the current Jewish ethnic groups in the population of the Land of Israel two thousand years ago, as narrated in the biblical story... These results appear to be a striking confirmation of the oral tradition). However, not all data accorded with these findings... Although no haplotype frequently common to Levites was found, a cluster of haplotypes with a high degree of relatedness was found among the Ashkenazi Levites... According to Kevin Brook.. the Ashkenazi variety of R1a1 comes from the Asian continental branch, the origins of which are believed to be in ancient Iran rather than in the European branch of the Slavic Belarusians Sorbs... Behar and his associates... point out, however, that the Levite cluster of the R-M17 haplotype is very common in non-Jewish populations of North Eastern Europe. It is reasonable to assume that the origin of the Jewish haplotypes is in non-Jewish Europeans, some of whose male progeny acquired the name (and status) of Levites.
  13. Entine, J. (2007). Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-446-40839-4.
  14. ^ Skorecki, K.; Selig, S.; Blazer, S.; Bradman, R.; Bradman, N.; Waburton, P. J.; Ismajlowicz, M.; Hammer, M. F. (January 1997). "Y chromosomes of Jewish priests". Nature. 385 (6611): 32. Bibcode:1997Natur.385...32S. doi:10.1038/385032a0. PMID 8985243. S2CID 5344425.
  15. ^ Behar, D. M.; Thomas, M. G.; Skorecki, K.; Hammer, M. F.; Bulygina, E.; Rosengarten, D.; Jones, A. L.; Held, K.; Moses, V.; Goldstein, D.; Bradman, N.; Weale, M. E. (October 2003). "Multiple origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y chromosome evidence for both Near Eastern and European ancestries". American Journal of Human Genetics. 73 (4): 768–79. doi:10.1086/378506. PMC 1180600. PMID 13680527.
  16. Tofanelli, S.; Ferri, G.; Bulayeva, K.; Caciagli, L; Onofri, V.; Taglioli, L.; Bulayev, O.; Boschi, I.; Alù, M.; Berti, A.; Rapone, C.; Beduschi, G.; Luiselli, D.; Cadenas, A. M.; Awadelkarim, K. D.; Mariani-Costantini, R.; Elwali, N. E.; Verginelli, F.; Pilli, E.; Herrera, R. J.; Gusmão, L.; Paoli, G.; Capelli, C. (November 2009). "J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements". European Journal of Human Genetics. 17 (11): 1520–4. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.58. PMC 2986692. PMID 19367321.
  17. Weitzman, Steven (2017). "DNA and the Origin of the Jews". TheTorah.com. the existence of the CMH along with its dating range were suggestive enough to lead the public to mistake the genetic findings as scientific evidence that cohanim were descendant from Aaron himself.
  18. ^ Weitzman, Steven (2019). The Origin of the Jews: The Quest for Roots in a Rootless Age. Princeton University Press. pp. 297–298, 294. ISBN 978-0-691-19165-2. Subsequent research has challenged this conclusion in a number of ways. One big problem is that the Cohen Modal Haplotype is found not only in priests but also among non-Jewish populations in Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. At first there were efforts to suggest such populations might also be descendant from the Hebrews, as in the famous case of the Lemba, an African tribe in Southern Africa (more about them a bit later). But it has since become clear that the original Cohen Modal Haplotype might have been common among Middle Eastern populations, not exclusive to the Jews or their Israelite ancestors... the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype, the version that is supposed to distinguish Jewish priests, probably split off from an older Cohen haplotype far more recently than earlier geneticists concluded. Beyond the question of when the split occurred, the authors of this study make a larger point: figuring out the right mutation rate to apply is a hotly contested issue; mutation rates are not constant in the real world, and the longer the time span to a common ancestor, the harder it is to pinpoint a distinctive genetic signature or to accurately estimate the amount of time involved.
  19. Thomas, M. G.; Parfitt, T.; Weiss, D. A.; Skorecki, K.; Wilson, J. F.; le Roux, M.; Bradman, N.; Goldstein, D. B. (February 2000). "Y chromosomes traveling south: the cohen modal haplotype and the origins of the Lemba--the "Black Jews of Southern Africa"". American Journal of Human Genetics. 66 (2): 674–86. doi:10.1086/302749. PMC 1288118. PMID 10677325.
  20. Soodyall, H.; Kromberg, J. G. (29 October 2015). "Human Genetics and Genomics and Sociocultural Beliefs and Practices in South Africa". In Kumar, D.; Chadwick, R. (eds.). Genomics and Society: Ethical, Legal, Cultural and Socioeconomic Implications. Academic Press/Elsevier. p. 316. ISBN 978-0-12-420195-8.
  21. Soodyall, H. (October 2013). "Lemba origins revisited: tracing the ancestry of Y chromosomes in South African and Zimbabwean Lemba". South African Medical Journal. 103 (12 Suppl 1): 1009–13. doi:10.7196/samj.7297 (inactive 10 November 2024). PMID 24300649.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
  22. ^ Tofanelli, S.; Taglioli, L.; Bertoncini, S.; Francalacci, P.; Klyosov, A.; Pagani, L. (10 November 2014). "Mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplotype motifs as diagnostic markers of Jewish ancestry: a reconsideration". Frontiers in Genetics. 5: 384. doi:10.3389/fgene.2014.00384. PMC 4229899. PMID 25431579. In conclusion... the overall substantial polyphyletism as well as their systematic occurrence in non-Jewish groups highlights the lack of support for using them either as markers of Jewish ancestry or Biblical tales.
  23. Zoossmann-Diskin, Avshalom (2000). "Are today's Jewish priests descended from the old ones?". Homo: Journal of Comparative Human Biology. 51 (2–3): 156–162. (Summary)
  24. Nebel, A.; Filon, D.; Brinkmann, B.; Majumder, P. P.; Faerman, M.; Oppenheim, A. (November 2001). "The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East". American Journal of Human Genetics. 69 (5): 1095–112. doi:10.1086/324070. PMC 1274378. PMID 11573163.
  25. Semino, O.; Magri, C.; Benuzzi, G.; Lin, A. A.; Al-Zahery, N; Battaglia, V.; Maccioni, L.; Triantaphyllidis, C.; Shen, P.; Oefner, P. J.; Zhivotovsky, L. A.; King, R.; Torroni, A.; Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.; Underhill, P. A.; Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. S. (May 2004). "Origin, diffusion, and differentiation of Y-chromosome haplogroups E and J: inferences on the neolithization of Europe and later migratory events in the Mediterranean area". American Journal of Human Genetics. 74 (5): 1023–34. doi:10.1086/386295. PMC 1181965. PMID 15069642.
  26. ^ Ekins, J.; Tinah, E. N.; Myres, N. M.; Ritchie, K. H.; Perego, U. A.; Ekins, J. B.; Hutchison, L. A.; Layton, L.; Lunt, M. L.; Masek, S. S.; Nelson, A. A.; Nelson, M. E.; Pennington, K. L.; Peterson, J. L.; Tolley, T.; Woodward, S. R. (2005). "An Updated World-Wide Characterization of the Cohen Modal Haplotype" (PDF). ASHG Meeting October 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 July 2011. Retrieved 19 February 2008.
  27. Cadenas, A. M.; Zhivotovsky, L. A.; Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.; Underhill, P. A.; Herrera, R. J. (March 2008). "Y-chromosome diversity characterizes the Gulf of Oman". European Journal of Human Genetics. 16 (3): 374–86. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201934. PMID 17928816. S2CID 32386262.
  28. Malaspina, P.; Tsopanomichalou, M.; Duman, T.; Stefan, M.; Silvestri, A.; Rinaldi, B.; Garcia, O.; Giparaki, M.; Plata, E.; Kozlov, A. I.; Barbujani, G.; Vernesi, C.; Papola, F.; Ciavarella, G.; Kovatchev, D.; Kerimova, M. G.; Anagnou, N.; Gavrila, L.; Veneziano, L.; Akar, N.; Loutradis, A.; Michalodimitrakis, E. N.; Terrenato, L.; Novelletto, A. (July 2001). "A multistep process for the dispersal of a Y chromosomal lineage in the Mediterranean area". Annals of Human Genetics. 65 (Pt 4): 339–49. doi:10.1046/j.1469-1809.2001.6540339.x. hdl:2108/44448. PMID 11592923. S2CID 221448190.
    Confusingly, because only four of the markers that Malaspina et al. tested were markers in common with the CMH study, three of which matched, they originally concluded that all of the CMH matches should be identified with what is now called Haplogroup J2. This is now known not to be the case.
  29. ^ Relethford, John H.; Bolnick, Deborah A. (2018). Reflections of Our Past: How Human History Is Revealed in Our Genes. Routledge. p. 208. ISBN 978-0-429-89171-7. In sum, the presence of the J-P58* haplogroup is a marker of Middle Eastern ancestry, and the more specific Extended CMH is a marker of Kohanim ancestry. Of course, many Kohanim have other Y-chromosome haplotypes, so there is not a one-to-one correlation, and there was probably more than one founding male lineage for the Kohanim.
  30. Elhaik, Eran (2016). "In Search of the jüdische Typus: A Proposed Benchmark to Test the Genetic Basis of Jewishness Challenges Notions of "Jewish Biomarkers"". Frontiers in Genetics. 7: 141. doi:10.3389/fgene.2016.00141. PMC 4974603. PMID 27547215. This reasoning also characterizes the decade old pursuit of "Cohen" and "Levite", markers. Although dispelled on numerous occasions (Zoossmann-Diskin, 2006; Klyosov, 2009; Tofanelli et al., 2009), the pursuit for priestly biomarkers continued relentlessly to this day
  31. ^ Behar, D. M.; Saag, L.; Karmin, M.; Gover, M. G.; Wexler, J. D.; Sanchez, L. F.; Greenspan, E.; Kushniarevich, A.; Davydenko, O.; Sahakyan, H.; Yepiskoposyan, L.; Boattini, A.; Sarno, S.; Pagani, L.; Carmi, S.; Tzur, S.; Metspalu, E.; Bormans, C.; Skorecki, K.; Metspalu, M.; Rootsi, S.; Villems, R. (November 2017). "The genetic variation in the R1a clade among the Ashkenazi Levites' Y chromosome". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 14969. Bibcode:2017NatSR...714969B. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-14761-7. PMC 5668307. PMID 29097670. Remarkably, the five Ashkenazi Cohen samples formed the tight cluster J1b-B877, shared only with one Yemenite, one Bulgarian and one Moroccan Cohen coalescing ~2,570 ybp (Table 1).
  32. Klyosov, Anatole A. (November 2009). "A comment on the paper: 'Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Priesthood' by M. F. Hammer, D. M. Behar, T. M. Karafet, F. L. Mendez, B. Hallmark, T. Erez, L. A. Zhivotovsky, S. Rosset, K. Skorecki, Hum. Genet., published online 8 August 2009". Human Genetics. 126 (5): 719–24, author reply 725–6. doi:10.1007/s00439-009-0739-1. PMID 19813025. A common ancestor of all 99 Cohanim lived 1,075 ±130 ybp, and this timing is reproducible for 9-, 12-, 17-, 22- and 67-marker haplotypes. A much higher values of 3,190 ±1,090 and 3,000 ±1,500 ybp were obtained in the cited paper (Hammer et al. 2009) using incorrect methods and incorrect mutation rates. A common ancestor of all the 99 J1e* Cohanim lived around the tenth century AD... An emphasis of the cited paper on the conclusion that an extended CMH on the J1e*-P58* background that …is remarkably absent in non-Jews and having the estimated divergence time of this lineage…3,190 ±1,090 years is incorrect regarding the divergence time. It is more understandable why the lineage originated only 1,075 ±130 years ago is remarkably absent in non-Jews
  33. Falk, R. (21 January 2015). "Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent". Frontiers in Genetics. 5: 462. doi:10.3389/fgene.2014.00462. PMC 4301023. PMID 25653666. No haplotype frequently common to Levites was found
  34. ^ Nebel, A.; Filon, D.; Faerman, M.; Soodyall, H.; Oppenheim, A. (March 2005). "Y chromosome evidence for a founder effect in Ashkenazi Jews". European Journal of Human Genetics. 13 (3): 388–91. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201319. PMID 15523495. S2CID 1466556.
  35. According to the Torah, Aaron was a great-grandson of Levi, so Kohanim and Levites should share a male ancestor within the time frame of the Biblical narrative.
  36. Behar, D. M.; Garrigan, D.; Kaplan, M. E.; Mobasher, Z.; Rosengarten, D.; Karafet, T. M.; Quintana-Murci, L.; Ostrer, H.; Skorecki, K.; Hammer, M. F. (March 2004). "Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome variation in Ashkenazi Jewish and host non-Jewish European populations" (PDF). Human Genetics. 114 (4): 354–65. doi:10.1007/s00439-003-1073-7. PMID 14740294. S2CID 10310338. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 November 2011. Retrieved 27 January 2007.
  37. ^ Siiri Rootsi, Doron M. Behar, et al., "Eastern origin of Ashkenazi Levites", Nature Communications 4, Article number: 2928 (2013) doi:10.1038/ncomms3928, published online 13 December 2013; accessed 4 October 2016
  38. Brindle, J. D. (8 October 2018). The Samaritans in Historical, Cultural and Linguistic Perspectives. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 9783110617306.
  39. Brindle, W. A. (1984). "The Origin and History of the Samaritans".
  40. ^ Shen, P.; Lavi, T.; Kivisild, T.; Chou, V; Sengun, D.; Gefel, D.; Shpirer, I.; Woolf, E.; Hillel, J.; Feldman, M. W.; Oefner, P. J. (September 2004). "Reconstruction of patrilineages and matrilineages of Samaritans and other Israeli populations from Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA sequence variation". Human Mutation. 24 (3): 248–60. doi:10.1002/humu.20077. PMID 15300852. S2CID 1571356.

External links

Categories: