Subject:
������� Who Are The Modern Jews?
�� Date:
������� Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:11:55 ‑0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
�� From:
������� "Wilma" <[email protected]>
���� To:
������� "Willie Martin" <[email protected]>
����������������������������� ��WHO ARE THE MODERN JEWS?
�������������������������������������� By Scott Stinson
�In this age of brain‑dead media programmed zombies, would it still be possible for the facts to speak? If so,
�there is something worth saying about the modern "Jewish" race, not written by anti‑semites, but by Jews
�themselves ‑ and where else but in The Jewish Encyclopedia! Please excuse me for being so abrupt, but I
�had to get your attention. You see, this article is worth reading because it has some facts that you need to
�know about the authenticity of today's Jewish race. The question that must be asked as well as answered is
�simple: Are the modern Jews really the descendants of the ancient people of Israel? The source of our
�information is also quite simple: The Jewish Encyclopedia. Hopefully we will not find any anti‑Semitism in the
�writings of these Jewish scholars. However, the reader should be forewarned. Their articles were written
�long before the age of mass‑media social engineering and do not contain any of the familiar buzz‑words
�common to today's new views. In other words, brace yourself for a factual scientific analysis of the racial
�origins of the modern Jews. Oh, and should you decide to verify any of these facts, you will find them in your
�local library in the 1901‑1905 edition of The Jewish Encyclopedia. So, please, do read on.
�At the turn of the last century there was great interest stirring in the science of anthropology. In the wake of
�this, Jewish scholarship turned its watchful eye upon itself and began to examine the racial claims that
�modern Jews make to the ancestral heritage of ancient Israel. The results were startling. The religious
�community found itself completely alienated by its scientific counterpart. The scientific method was coming
�face to face with religious traditions and there was a great unsettling in the land. The facts were telling a
�different story than what had been heard for centuries in the local synagogue. In his article on Purity of Race,
�Joseph Jacobs relates something of the dilemma that was gripping the Jewish community at this time. He
�writes: "The question whether the Jews of today are in the main descended from the Jews of Bible
�times, and from them alone, is still undecided" (Jew. Enc. X (1905), 283). What a startling statement to
�come from a Jewish scholar and to be printed in The Jewish Encyclopedia! However, scholarship must have
�its reasons. Let us look further to see what the scientific community had discovered that would warrant such
�a radical and perplexing statement.
�In his article on Purity of Race, Jacobs gives several important facts that were forcing anthropologists of his
�day to reconsider the modern Jew's racial claims to be Biblical Israel. In the study of craniometry which
�involves the measurements of the skull, the evidence was clearly mounting against the modern Jews. After
�extensive samples were taken from a broad spectrum of Jewish groups world‑wide. The conclusion was
�evident. Jacobs writes; "They are predominantly brachycephalic, or broad‑headed, while the Semites
�of Arabic origin are invariably dolichocephalic, or long‑headed" (Jew. Enc. X (1905), 284). Simply put,
�all known Semites have historically been long‑headed, but the modern Jews were predominantly
�round‑headed! While Jacobs avoids drawing any personal conclusions, he relates a prevailing view of his
�time: "Some anthropologist are inclined to associate the racial origins of the Jews, not with the
�Semites, whose language they adopted, but with the Armenians and Hittites of Mesopotamia,
�whose broad skulls and curved noses they appear to have inherited" (Jew. Enc. X (1905), 284). The
�findings of some anthropologist were leading them to conclude that the modern Jews were not in fact
�Semites at all. but rather descendants of the ancient Hittites. Jacobs however was personally hesitant to
�confess that the Jews were not the Jews, simply because of the profound implications it imposed. He also
�wrote the article on Anthropology and there declared: "Much turns upon the preliminary question
�whether contemporary Jews are of the same race as those mentioned in the Bible" (Jew. Enc. I
�(1901), 619). Jacobs obviously realized the implications of the data he was receiving. It suggested the
�revolutionary idea that the Jews were not in fact the Jews. He again presented the anthropological evidence
�the cranial measurements of the modern Jews, stating: "Their skulls are mainly brachycephalic; that is,
�the breadth is generally over 80 per cent of the length. This has been used as an argument against
�the purity of race, as most Semites ‑ like the Arabs and Syrians ‑ are dolichocephalic, or
�long‑headed" (Jew, Enc. I (1901), 619). Jacobs avoids any personal conclusions. He was the former
�president of The Jewish Historical Society of England and obviously could not bring himself to break with the
�great strength of the "Jewish" tradition.
�But Jacobs was not the only Jewish scholar of his day that was attempting to come to terms with the startling
�discoveries of his time. After all, it was the talk of the Jewish community. The haunting question persisted,
�Were the Jews really the Jews? In his article on Craniometry, Jewish scholar Maurice Fishberg provides a
�more comprehensive treatment of the "Jewish" cranial findings that were turning the Jewish world upside
�down. Moreover, Fishberg was a licensed medical Doctor and a medical examiner in New York City. He
�was clearly an expert in his field and eminently qualified to comment on the data at hand. Unlike Jacobs who
�was tied to the Jewish historical society, Fishberg presents the facts much more objectively. Forthwith, he
�declares: "As is at present accepted by nearly all anthropologists, the shape of the head is the most
�stable characteristic of a given race" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 335). The article by Fishberg is thoroughly
�educational as well as informative. His scientific frame of reference is immediately evident. He includes
�numerous charts and statistics, a complete inventory of all the cranial data collected on the Jews to date.
�Fishberg also gives an understanding of some of the basic concepts and terminology. He writes: "The
�cephalic index is expressed by multiplying the width of the head by 100 and dividing the product by
�the length ...The broader or rounder the head is, the higher its cephalic index, and vice versa. When
�the cephalic index is above 80 anthropologist term it 'brachycephalic'; between 75 and 80,
�'mesocephalic'; and less than 75, 'dolichocephalic"' (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 333). Dr. Fishberg then
�proceeds to present all the Jewish cranial findings in classical scientific form. He writes: "Appended is a
�table of nearly 3,000 Jewish heads, from various countries, measured during the last twenty years"
�(Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 333). In the table that follows, there is not one Jewish head that has a cephalic index
�below 80, and they are taken from a wide variety of countries spread throughout Europe, Russia, and Asia
�Minor. Fishberg comments on the data: "On an examination of the figures in this table a remarkable
�uniformity of the cephalic index of the modern Jews will be noticed....nearly 90 per cent are
�between 81.5 and 83 ...Another remarkable fact is the striking absence of the dolichocephalic type,
�which is characteristic of all the other modern Semitic races" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 334). Dr. Fishberg
�also presents a large graphic chart which shows the cephalic indexes of the Jews by percentage. This chart
�peaks upward at the cephalic index measurement of 82, indicating the average Jewish mean. Fishberg
�comments on the overall percentage factor: "What is worthy of notice is the small percentage of
�dolichocephaly ‑ only 1.58 percent ‑ and the large preponderance of brachycephaly, 76.48 per cent"
�(Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 334). The Jewish medical examiner also confirms the representative nature of his
�findings. He states: "The cephalic indexes from which this curve was obtained were those of Jews in
�various parts of the world" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902L 331). Fishberg then provides a table of cephalic indexes
�by gender which shows little significant difference. He writes: "There appears no perceptible difference
�between the cephalic index of Jews and that of Jewesses" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 335). Finally,
�Fishberg addresses the most obvious and confronting problem with his findings, specifically how they relate
�to the racial claims of the modern Jews. He writes: "The most important problem suggested by a study
�of craniometrical results concerning Jews is the relation of the type head of the modern Jews to
�that of the ancient Hebrews and to the modern Semitic skulls. The pure Semitic skull is
�dolichocephalic, as may be seen from a study of the heads of modern Arabs, Abyssinians, Syrians
�.... The only way the type of the head may change is by intermixture with other races. If the ancient
�Hebrews were of the same stock as the modern non‑Jewish Semites, and if the modern Jews are
�their descendants, then a pure dolichocephalic type of head would be expected among the Jews.
�As has been seen, all results of craniometry prove that the Jews are brachycephalic, and that the
�dolichocephalic form is only found among them in less than two percent of the cases" (Jew. Enc. IV
�(1902), 335). Fishberg presents an excellent summary of the problem. If the modern Jews are descendants
�of the ancient Hebrews and are supposed to be Semites, then dolichocephalic skulls would be expected.
�However, the exact opposite is true. The Jews are predominantly round‑headed. Fishberg provides some
�other cranial data, but draws no further conclusions. The factual data he presents, however, is some of the
�most incriminating evidence to have ever been collected against the racial claims of the modern Jews.
�Like the shape of the skull, the shape and configuration of the nose is another important racial index that was
�recognized by anthropologist at the turn of the century. It is also another clear sign against the modern Jew's
�racial claims to be Biblical Israel. It turns out that the so called "Jewish nose" is not Jewish at all, but rather
�comes from the ancient Hittites, as do also their round skulls. Dr. Fishberg is also the author of the article on
�the Nose. On the importance of this area as a racial index, the Jewish medical examiner writes: "The
�relation of the breadth of the nose to its length, known as the `nasal index,' has been considered
�one of the best means of distinguishing the various races of mankind" (Jew. Enc. IX (1905), 339).
�Fishberg proceeds to present a table of the nasal indexes of the modern Jews. Their marked similarity to
�one another and peculiarity to others again predominates in this table. Joseph Jacobs, in his article on
�Anthropology, also mentioned the peculiarity of the Jewish nose, stating: "The nose is generally the
�characteristic feature of the Jews, who have, on the average, the longest (77 ram) and narrowest
�(34 mm)" (Jew. Enc. I (1901), 619). In attempting to address this peculiarity, Fishberg presents some of the
�current thinking circulating among the anthropologist of his day. He writes: "Some authors show that this
�form of nose is not characteristically Semitic, became the modern non‑Jewish Semites, particularly
�such as are supposed to have maintained themselves in a pure state, as the bedouin Arabs, do not
�possess this characteristic nose at all Their noses are as a rule short, straight, and often 'snub' or
�concave. Luschan holds that the hook‑nose is by no means characteristic of the Semites, and
�contends that the number of arched noses that are found among the Jews is due to ancient
�intermixture with the Hittites in Asia Minor. He shows that other races also, as the Armenian, for
�instance, who have a good portion of Hittite blood in their veins, have hook‑noses" (Jew. Enc. IX
�(1905), 338). Thus, the notorious "Jewish" hook‑nose is another clear sign to the true racial origins of the
�modern Jews.
�According to all the racial indicators recognized by leading anthropologist at the turn of the century, the
�modern Jews have more in common with the ancient Hittites, than with the ancient Israelites. In another early
�publication written about the same time, this statement is found in the article on the Hittites: "The human
�type is always brachycephalic [round‑headed], with brow receding sharply and long nose making
�almost one line with the sloping forehead. In the sculptures of the Commagene and the Tyana
�districts, the nose has a long curving tip, of very Jewish appearance" (Enc. Brit. XIII (1910), 537). It
�should be evidently now that the round‑headed hook‑nosed Jews of today have a definite racial connection
�with the ancient Hittites, remembering or course what Joseph Jacobs wrote: "Some anthropologists are
�inclined to associate the racial origins of the Jews, not with the Semites, whose language they
�adopted, but with the Armenians and Hittites of Mesopotamia, whose broad skulls and cuffed
�noses they appear to have inherited" (Jew. Enc. X (1903), 264). Moreover, a portrait of one of these
�Hittites taken from a sculptural relief found on the tomb of an Egyptian Pharaoh clearly reveals what looks
�like a typical modern Jew (Jew. Enc. VI (1904), 427). The resemblance is so startling it is uncanny! In light of
�this, and all the other scientific evidence, confirmed and verified, it should be enough to convince any rational
�person that the modern Jews are standing on very shaky ground in their racial claims to be descendants of
�Biblical Israel. If you don't believe me just read The Jewish Encyclopedia, remembering of course that there
�is nothing anti‑Semitic about it. After all, the Hittites were not Semites at all. hittites.htm
�http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/
____________________________________________________
���� IncrediMail ‑ Email has finally evolved ‑ Click Here