The link has nothing actionable. Freedman's theory is that two peoples can be distinguished and kept separate throughout history, but this doesn't agree with the facts. There was a Judahite people in diaspora and a Khazarian people in Khazaria, and they agreed to merge in that Khazarians were given citizenship and intermarriage rights with Judahites. In the 10th century the word "Ju" and homonyms was first noticed in French as a short form of Latin "Judaeus"; they were used synonymously. At the end of the 10th century the Khazars were conquered and didn't retain their identity as a people, even though those who had escaped continued to be accepted as Judahites.
Peoples have the rights to accept mergers and to decide for themselves what name they use. For Freedman's theory to work there would have to be no intermarriage and no unity of polity, but it's long recognized that Ashkenazi (largely descended from Khazarians) and Sephardi (largely descended from earlier Judahites) have different genes but equal citizenship, marriage rights, and unity of polity.
Separately, Bible passages were brought forward as if they applied to all Jews. Textually they don't at all, but it's also neglected that according to Acts 3-4, the crowd that called for Jesus's death also constituted hundreds of the first 5,000 catholic Christians. So that did a lot of work on reversing the curse. In the end it will be totally reversed, Romans 11.
For us to say the Jews are not Jews is tantamount to giving them permission to say the Americans are not Americans.
If some but not all have Khazar heritage, by what right do we say the Jews don't get to decide who are Jews if we want to prevent them from saying Americans don't get to decide who are Americans?
I'll grant you that I'm not finding the evidence on which OED makes its determinations. Possibly a slightly interesting twist, but, (logic) since the theory is that the Khazars joined other Jews, the people doesn't cease to be Jews.
The Jewish people have a continuous polity from the time of Judah. If we have the right to tell Jews they're not Jews, they have the right to tell Americans they're not Americans.
The link has nothing actionable. Freedman's theory is that two peoples can be distinguished and kept separate throughout history, but this doesn't agree with the facts. There was a Judahite people in diaspora and a Khazarian people in Khazaria, and they agreed to merge in that Khazarians were given citizenship and intermarriage rights with Judahites. In the 10th century the word "Ju" and homonyms was first noticed in French as a short form of Latin "Judaeus"; they were used synonymously. At the end of the 10th century the Khazars were conquered and didn't retain their identity as a people, even though those who had escaped continued to be accepted as Judahites.
Peoples have the rights to accept mergers and to decide for themselves what name they use. For Freedman's theory to work there would have to be no intermarriage and no unity of polity, but it's long recognized that Ashkenazi (largely descended from Khazarians) and Sephardi (largely descended from earlier Judahites) have different genes but equal citizenship, marriage rights, and unity of polity.
Separately, Bible passages were brought forward as if they applied to all Jews. Textually they don't at all, but it's also neglected that according to Acts 3-4, the crowd that called for Jesus's death also constituted hundreds of the first 5,000 catholic Christians. So that did a lot of work on reversing the curse. In the end it will be totally reversed, Romans 11.
For us to say the Jews are not Jews is tantamount to giving them permission to say the Americans are not Americans.
I was expecting you to show up with your baseless walls of text discrediting the historian and author of the article.
Apart from your cucked coffee table book you blasphemously call Bible do you any any other historical sources to backup your claims?
Ask your AI to limit the answer to 100/words or less.
Freedman wasn't a historian.
Variants of "Jew" begin in the 10th century, elision from Latin "Judaeus".
The Khazar hypothesis states Khazars joined Judahites already in Eastern Europe, not that they had no genetic connection to Judahites.
If some but not all have Khazar heritage, by what right do we say the Jews don't get to decide who are Jews if we want to prevent them from saying Americans don't get to decide who are Americans?
Including Wikipedia.
I'm not even bothering theckibg your other two links after your first is an unofficial edit of Wikipedia of all places.
You're using an old argument to attack Friedman. One that is present in the article and has been used for decades.
Anyway, how to tell you're a khazarian without saying it?
You're a joke satanist.
See, it doesn't matter if I go short or long.
I'll grant you that I'm not finding the evidence on which OED makes its determinations. Possibly a slightly interesting twist, but, (logic) since the theory is that the Khazars joined other Jews, the people doesn't cease to be Jews.
The Jewish people have a continuous polity from the time of Judah. If we have the right to tell Jews they're not Jews, they have the right to tell Americans they're not Americans.