tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8706557382895216627.post5927486320474877891..comments2023-08-24T06:04:08.158-04:00Comments on Jew or Not Jew Unplugged: Jews In the News: The Historical Accuracy of ShiksappealZevhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16245679359526388191noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8706557382895216627.post-48942517588849418232013-10-09T07:55:40.403-04:002013-10-09T07:55:40.403-04:00P.S., another thing: the article mentions that the...P.S., another thing: the article mentions that these lineages were "incorporated" into the Jewish gene pool 2000 or more years ago. So they are talking about Roman-era converts to Judaism. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone: back then, conversion to Judaism was quite common and Romans (and others) certainly converted to Judaism. It is only in the last 1000 or so years that Jews have become homogeneous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8706557382895216627.post-89102831972941256642013-10-09T07:47:59.331-04:002013-10-09T07:47:59.331-04:00"This one is especially tasty considering it ..."This one is especially tasty considering it suggests that the people who have been the most vehement defenders of matrilineal inheritance would not actually be Jewish themselves by the same law."<br /><br />You're forgetting a few things, though:<br /><br />1. Those women did convert to Judaism.<br /><br />2. In the 1000+ years since, those women's descendants would have through the Mikvah many times.<br /><br />3. All Jews are descended exclusively from converts to Judaism if you go back far enough. If you back through the maternal line, 7000 years ago, for example, the matrilineal ancestor you would discover at that point for any Jew on earth would be a non-Jewish woman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com