skip to main | skip to sidebar Bible Basher - Heretics Welcome
We draw the line at inciting violence, but otherwise you can say what you like.
Thursday, 1 May 2008
Gypsies/Israel
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has any ideas about links between the Gypsies/Romanies and the ten Northern tribes of Israel who disappeared off the map centuries ago. I need some concrete evidence (documents? archaeology?) to back up some of the traditions that have been handed down.
Click 'COMMENTS' just below this if you have any information or to see what others have said before you.
Thankyou.
PS. Some interesting websites are out there including this one a friend put me onto: http://www.wallenbergcentre.net/gypsies.php
Posted by Bible Basher at 11:20
15 comments:
Paul Arnold said...
Hi Gerry keep up the Good work, I was at the retreat at Hollybush and a question came up about the lost tribe of Israel. Can you make it clear to your readers, that there was Ten Tribes who whent missing from the Northen Kingdom. The Northern Kingdom (Israel) devided itself from Juda in the South, around 931BC. The Northern Kingdom had Ten tribes and Southern Kingdom consisted of only two Tribes, Benjamin and Juda. However there was also a large nomber of Levites who administered in the Temple at Jerusum in the South. The King of Assyria invaded the Northern Kingdom around 721BC and took captive the Ten Tribes.There is no trace of these peoples recorded from that point. However God himself knows were his people are! and one day will recall them back to Israel.
17 May 2008 15:13
Bible Basher said...
I have some more info from Josephus, Antiquities 9.14.1(279) where he explains where the people went. He simply states that they went to Media and Persia, but that could be anywhere from Egypt to India, but the people transported INTO Samaria came from a place or river called Cuthah so it is possible that the israelites went there. He repeats some of the same info in Antiquities 9.14.3(288) and then explains how the Cutheans called for Levites to return and teach them how to worship the 'god' of their new land because they were having a bad time. This is the beginning of the Samaritan religion. Josephus continues to explain that when the Jews returned later they tried to join them but were rejected.
There is no record of these tribes returning, and I'm not aware of any concrete evidence to say that they are included in the Jews of today (ie Judah, Benjamin and some Levites).
That much is historical and documented. If we know that the Israelites went to Median/Persian lands then they could have been in the area north of India which is where the Gypsies are known to have come from. Its a hole-in-one, but globally it is very close, so could the Gypsies be the ten northern tribes of Israel? What I need is some documentation or evidence. Keep looking.
18 May 2008 17:44
Anonymous said...
yes they are not lost god knows where the ten tribes are as for the gypsies being part of the the race of the jews, fanciffull to say the least
there is good proof that the gypsies came with the jews when they came out of egypt that would account for the many ways the gypsies have similer ways
monotheistic
laws on cleaning
being outside normal culture
many of the word used
word for GOD [odell] [ell]
many of the customs like covering the windows and mirrors at deaths
there is to many to list
but i think the one that clinches it for me is this there was a town in goshen where the jews were slaves before they came out of egypt [with many other tribes the bible says] the name of the town was sohani the name that the ancient jews had for the gypsies was sohanis
food for thought
number on reason i dont think we are jews is none of the gypsies in the world are being called there but the jews are.
11 June 2008 23:21
Bible Basher said...
but how do you know we are not being called back there? When Judah/Benjamin returned to Jerusalem they did so in stages, so perhaps Rroms will be next? On the other hand there is a revival amongst Gypsies worldwide - could that not be 'God calling' but in a spiritual rather than geographical sense?
12 June 2008 09:29
Anonymous said...
then if it just spirtualised why are the jews going there geographically and not spiritually? besides that gypsies and jews have words for each other recognising they are different anyway when will you be circumsised [not spiritually]
Gypsies/Israel
6
1414
Vastaukset
- alkuperäinen aito
Bible Basher said...
I think that there is some kind of revival going on amongst Jews as well as Gypsies, but I'm not certain to what extent, so we might e able to say that they are returning spiritually. However, it could be that the Gypsies will return to Israel. Bear in mind that not all Jews have returned - there are huge communities all over the world. Likewise, there are Gypsies in Israel, and others scattered abroad. Could we not say that the Gypsies have been recalled, and many have gone? perhaps they just need to be recognised. I'd like to move to the mission in Israel some day myself (even though I'm a gadjos! I'll leave it to you to make the obvious joke about my grandparents!)
12 June 2008 13:45
Anonymous said...
iam a gypsy living in the east coast of the usa ,some times i would see jewish women in the new york area and i could swear that the were my people the would all wear long skirts out of respect for there familys so furth,we also believe in out wardly being clean like the hebrews believe inwardly , we do not deal with out siders,we do not like to mix are blood line and if a man does it its ok but a women to do so is a very bad thing to us ,but we do not think exactly alike the hebrews are much more concern with details ,in every thing they do ,it has to be in a very good form so furth, roma haa there just a little more laid back execpt for there house to be clean they would feel as thow there god would not walk in there house if it was not clean .gypsy people have always been close to god .in all my life i have not met a gypsy who denies god in public and if he or she did we would think that that person is evil and we probaly would stay away and talk about him and his whole family,not unless his family was against what he was about we also believe that a boy is a man at 13 years of age that god holds him for his thoughts and sins one being the same .we believe that a women is unclean only after she is married ,and also a bab when born for weeks is not to be touched b any male ,but his father would probably touch him after a week well how many things can i say,i could say alot more but hmms the word with are people
28 July 2008 05:30
Bible Basher said...
I'm especially interested by the fact that men can marry out, yet women shouldn't. In Ezra/Nehemiah the opposite seemed to apply, yet it may be the case that those women were not foreign genetically, but were foreign in their morals - they were called gentiles because they were idolatrous or were unclean in their habits. I'd be interested in any other customs that may link gypsies to Jews.
28 July 2008 18:47
An Hermetic Pilgrim said...
Dear Gerry,
If you are still interested in researching the Semitic origins of Roma, you may enjoy this web site (maintained by an Orthodox Hasidic):
http://www.imninalu.net/imninalu.htm
I have scanned through it and the material is well researched and seems quite reliable.
Luke
15 September 2008 09:59
An Hermetic Pilgrim said...
The most concise page on that site and the best place to look first:
http://www.imninalu.net/Roma.htm
15 September 2008 10:04
Bible Basher said...
Rene Zenellatto, from Vie et Lumiere, has sent me an entire article to translate. It seemed to warrant a new post, so go to October's postings or follow
http://bible-basher.blogspot.com/2008/10/rene-zenellatto-gypsies-israel.html
06 October 2008 14:04- kappale osa
Sumnakay said...
There's a mistake that people usually do when dealing with this subject: exchanging the terms "Israelite" and "Jewish" as synonyms. They are not. To be explicit, Roma are not Jews, Roma are Israelites as Jews are Israelites, too. It's like saying that both the English and the Scots are British. It is interesting that all the common features between Roma and Jews belong to the Israelite period, before the Tribes separated forever from each other. Judaism began with Ezra, after the return from Babylon, in the 5th century BCE. Then, the Northern Tribes were not present, and it is obvious that all precepts and rules established by Judaism are unknown to the other Israelites, namely, the Gypsies (and other peoples descending from the lost Tribes). Consequently, it is unwise to say that "Roma cannot be Jews because they do not observe many things that Jews do observe". Most of these rules were established in the Rabbinic period, not in ancient Israel. On the other hand, the Northern Israelites were set aside from Judah because they did no longer keep the Commandments and practised divination and magics, that was the reason by which G*D rejected them. It was also established for the Northern Tribes that tehey will no longer have Shabbats nor any of the solemnities of Israel "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her solemnities, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her appointed seasons" (Hoshea 2:11). Northern Israel was to be spread among the nations and forget where they came from. If you read Hoshea, it is easy to understand, as they were "Not My People", in order that they would be called again "Children of the Most High" from the nations where they have been spread. These prophecies do not fit the Jewish people, that has never ceased to celebrate the solemnities and the Shabbath, and has never forgotten the Israelite origin. In fact, in Hoshea 1:7 it says: "but I will have compassion upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their G*d", in contrast with the previous verse (6), that says: "I will no more have compassion upon the house of Israel". So, the house of Israel and Judah are two different entities, a fact that Christians do still not distinguish after two millennia of reading the Bible...
Roma belong to the Tribes of Israel like Ephrayim and Menasheh (the two that were carried away in the last Assyrian deportation and were not resettled in Hala, Havor and Gozan, with the other Tribes, but "in the cities of Madai", that in those times included the Indus Valley).
Judah, Levi and the remnants of Northern Israel that joined Judah are the Tribes to which present-day Jews belong, the other Tribes are not Jewish, but Israelites only.
31 October 2008 17:03 - What do you think?
kappale osa kirjoitti:
Sumnakay said...
There's a mistake that people usually do when dealing with this subject: exchanging the terms "Israelite" and "Jewish" as synonyms. They are not. To be explicit, Roma are not Jews, Roma are Israelites as Jews are Israelites, too. It's like saying that both the English and the Scots are British. It is interesting that all the common features between Roma and Jews belong to the Israelite period, before the Tribes separated forever from each other. Judaism began with Ezra, after the return from Babylon, in the 5th century BCE. Then, the Northern Tribes were not present, and it is obvious that all precepts and rules established by Judaism are unknown to the other Israelites, namely, the Gypsies (and other peoples descending from the lost Tribes). Consequently, it is unwise to say that "Roma cannot be Jews because they do not observe many things that Jews do observe". Most of these rules were established in the Rabbinic period, not in ancient Israel. On the other hand, the Northern Israelites were set aside from Judah because they did no longer keep the Commandments and practised divination and magics, that was the reason by which G*D rejected them. It was also established for the Northern Tribes that tehey will no longer have Shabbats nor any of the solemnities of Israel "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her solemnities, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her appointed seasons" (Hoshea 2:11). Northern Israel was to be spread among the nations and forget where they came from. If you read Hoshea, it is easy to understand, as they were "Not My People", in order that they would be called again "Children of the Most High" from the nations where they have been spread. These prophecies do not fit the Jewish people, that has never ceased to celebrate the solemnities and the Shabbath, and has never forgotten the Israelite origin. In fact, in Hoshea 1:7 it says: "but I will have compassion upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their G*d", in contrast with the previous verse (6), that says: "I will no more have compassion upon the house of Israel". So, the house of Israel and Judah are two different entities, a fact that Christians do still not distinguish after two millennia of reading the Bible...
Roma belong to the Tribes of Israel like Ephrayim and Menasheh (the two that were carried away in the last Assyrian deportation and were not resettled in Hala, Havor and Gozan, with the other Tribes, but "in the cities of Madai", that in those times included the Indus Valley).
Judah, Levi and the remnants of Northern Israel that joined Judah are the Tribes to which present-day Jews belong, the other Tribes are not Jewish, but Israelites only.
31 October 2008 17:03Bible Basher said...
I've been wondering about the Sohan thing and the way it has been associated with the people who came out with Israel in Ex 12. When you think, it would contradict the rest of the proposal that Gypsies descend from the ten tribes. In Ex 12 'Israel' refers to all the 12 tribes, and the other people are therefore gentiles. Although over time those same people were evidently absorbed into the community because there would always be mention of 'the 12 tribes of Israel AND the other people with them, they clearly lost their separate identity and so we only need talk of 12 tribes. That is until they split into 10 northern and 2 Southern (plus Levi etc). It seems to me that we should simply stick with the theory that Gypsies are the 10 northern tribes and Jews the 2 Southern. Granted I am generalising and simplifying, but if we start trying to find other hints and sources for the Gypsies we are tending to read into vague links, and 'Sohan' is such a one. We must chose:
either
1. Gypsies are gentiles who hitched up with the 12 tribes from Egypt, but are therefore not of Israel. This also means that they kept their distinct identity even though there is no mention of a separate group alongside Israel throughout the Old Testament, and all we have to go on is a possible word association with a town/name for which we have extremely thin evidence. There happens to be a town of that name in that area BUT (A) we do not know if that was the name of the place 3500 years ago when the Exodus took place (B) we do not know who lived there at the time (C) the Bible does not say that the 'other people' came from 'Sohan' (D) word associations are forensic: titilating as they may be, they can only back up more solid evidence, but can not be a basis of a theory (E) it would contradict the 10 tribes theory
or
2. Gypsies are Israelites, the 10 tribes of the North, taken to Media (which includes the Indus) by the Assyrians, for which we have well documented evidence ie the Bible and Josephus.
What do you think?
12 November 2008 09:57
Sumnakay said...
Aout the "Gentile" peoples that joined Israel in the Exodus, we can say that they were assimilated as Israelites and intermarried. That's why there's no mention of them after the land of Canaan was conquered. On the other side, the Canaanites were also asimilated, as the Israelites did not obey the commandment and intermarried. During the Kings' period, Canaanites are no longer mentioned, they were included in Israel by intermarriage. Through intermarriage, all those "Gerim" acquired for their children to be true descent from the Israelite Tribes.
However, I don't think that Gypsies descend from all the 10 Tribes, but from one or two of them; there are other peoples in India and the Iranian region, up to Anatolia, that may prove Israelite origin. Gypsies likely come from the two Tribes scattered in "Madai" up to the Indus Valley, Ephraim and Manasheh.
12 November 2008 14:11
Anonymous said...
While the clinical and homogenized approach regarding Roma origin and history must be appreciated for the sake of accuracy, Roma oral tradition seems be dismissed.
What if Moses (upon setting the oral history and traditions of his people into stone) had been burdened with historical documentation and accuracy, and the oral history of his people had been dismissed and ignored?
08 March 2009 05:46 - iglu inutute
What do you think? kirjoitti:
Bible Basher said...
I've been wondering about the Sohan thing and the way it has been associated with the people who came out with Israel in Ex 12. When you think, it would contradict the rest of the proposal that Gypsies descend from the ten tribes. In Ex 12 'Israel' refers to all the 12 tribes, and the other people are therefore gentiles. Although over time those same people were evidently absorbed into the community because there would always be mention of 'the 12 tribes of Israel AND the other people with them, they clearly lost their separate identity and so we only need talk of 12 tribes. That is until they split into 10 northern and 2 Southern (plus Levi etc). It seems to me that we should simply stick with the theory that Gypsies are the 10 northern tribes and Jews the 2 Southern. Granted I am generalising and simplifying, but if we start trying to find other hints and sources for the Gypsies we are tending to read into vague links, and 'Sohan' is such a one. We must chose:
either
1. Gypsies are gentiles who hitched up with the 12 tribes from Egypt, but are therefore not of Israel. This also means that they kept their distinct identity even though there is no mention of a separate group alongside Israel throughout the Old Testament, and all we have to go on is a possible word association with a town/name for which we have extremely thin evidence. There happens to be a town of that name in that area BUT (A) we do not know if that was the name of the place 3500 years ago when the Exodus took place (B) we do not know who lived there at the time (C) the Bible does not say that the 'other people' came from 'Sohan' (D) word associations are forensic: titilating as they may be, they can only back up more solid evidence, but can not be a basis of a theory (E) it would contradict the 10 tribes theory
or
2. Gypsies are Israelites, the 10 tribes of the North, taken to Media (which includes the Indus) by the Assyrians, for which we have well documented evidence ie the Bible and Josephus.
What do you think?
12 November 2008 09:57
Sumnakay said...
Aout the "Gentile" peoples that joined Israel in the Exodus, we can say that they were assimilated as Israelites and intermarried. That's why there's no mention of them after the land of Canaan was conquered. On the other side, the Canaanites were also asimilated, as the Israelites did not obey the commandment and intermarried. During the Kings' period, Canaanites are no longer mentioned, they were included in Israel by intermarriage. Through intermarriage, all those "Gerim" acquired for their children to be true descent from the Israelite Tribes.
However, I don't think that Gypsies descend from all the 10 Tribes, but from one or two of them; there are other peoples in India and the Iranian region, up to Anatolia, that may prove Israelite origin. Gypsies likely come from the two Tribes scattered in "Madai" up to the Indus Valley, Ephraim and Manasheh.
12 November 2008 14:11
Anonymous said...
While the clinical and homogenized approach regarding Roma origin and history must be appreciated for the sake of accuracy, Roma oral tradition seems be dismissed.
What if Moses (upon setting the oral history and traditions of his people into stone) had been burdened with historical documentation and accuracy, and the oral history of his people had been dismissed and ignored?
08 March 2009 05:46you are out of your mind.
- jjjjjjj
What do you think? kirjoitti:
Bible Basher said...
I've been wondering about the Sohan thing and the way it has been associated with the people who came out with Israel in Ex 12. When you think, it would contradict the rest of the proposal that Gypsies descend from the ten tribes. In Ex 12 'Israel' refers to all the 12 tribes, and the other people are therefore gentiles. Although over time those same people were evidently absorbed into the community because there would always be mention of 'the 12 tribes of Israel AND the other people with them, they clearly lost their separate identity and so we only need talk of 12 tribes. That is until they split into 10 northern and 2 Southern (plus Levi etc). It seems to me that we should simply stick with the theory that Gypsies are the 10 northern tribes and Jews the 2 Southern. Granted I am generalising and simplifying, but if we start trying to find other hints and sources for the Gypsies we are tending to read into vague links, and 'Sohan' is such a one. We must chose:
either
1. Gypsies are gentiles who hitched up with the 12 tribes from Egypt, but are therefore not of Israel. This also means that they kept their distinct identity even though there is no mention of a separate group alongside Israel throughout the Old Testament, and all we have to go on is a possible word association with a town/name for which we have extremely thin evidence. There happens to be a town of that name in that area BUT (A) we do not know if that was the name of the place 3500 years ago when the Exodus took place (B) we do not know who lived there at the time (C) the Bible does not say that the 'other people' came from 'Sohan' (D) word associations are forensic: titilating as they may be, they can only back up more solid evidence, but can not be a basis of a theory (E) it would contradict the 10 tribes theory
or
2. Gypsies are Israelites, the 10 tribes of the North, taken to Media (which includes the Indus) by the Assyrians, for which we have well documented evidence ie the Bible and Josephus.
What do you think?
12 November 2008 09:57
Sumnakay said...
Aout the "Gentile" peoples that joined Israel in the Exodus, we can say that they were assimilated as Israelites and intermarried. That's why there's no mention of them after the land of Canaan was conquered. On the other side, the Canaanites were also asimilated, as the Israelites did not obey the commandment and intermarried. During the Kings' period, Canaanites are no longer mentioned, they were included in Israel by intermarriage. Through intermarriage, all those "Gerim" acquired for their children to be true descent from the Israelite Tribes.
However, I don't think that Gypsies descend from all the 10 Tribes, but from one or two of them; there are other peoples in India and the Iranian region, up to Anatolia, that may prove Israelite origin. Gypsies likely come from the two Tribes scattered in "Madai" up to the Indus Valley, Ephraim and Manasheh.
12 November 2008 14:11
Anonymous said...
While the clinical and homogenized approach regarding Roma origin and history must be appreciated for the sake of accuracy, Roma oral tradition seems be dismissed.
What if Moses (upon setting the oral history and traditions of his people into stone) had been burdened with historical documentation and accuracy, and the oral history of his people had been dismissed and ignored?
08 March 2009 05:46j
- haikuma Jeee
jjjjjjj kirjoitti:
j
Hapa kikkeli kamaa.
Ketjusta on poistettu 2 sääntöjenvastaista viestiä.
Luetuimmat keskustelut
Heikki Silvennoinen petti vaimoaan vuosien ajan
Viiden lapsen isä Heikki kehuu kirjassaan kuinka paljon on pettänyt vaimoaan vuosien varrella.1442161- 271938
Miksi ihmeessä nainen seurustelit kanssani joskus
Olin ruma silloin ja nykyisin vielä rumempi En voi kuin miettiä että miksi Olitko vain rikki edellisestä suhteesta ja ha231888Persut nimittivät kummeli-hahmon valtiosihteeriksi!
Persujen riveistä löytyi taas uusi törkyturpa valtiosihteeriksi! Jutun perusteella järjenjuoksu on kuin sketsihahmolla.851690Onko ministeri Juuso epäkelpo ministerin tehtäviensä hoitamiseen?
Eikö hänellä ole kompetenttia hoitaa sosiaali- ja terveysministetin toimialalle kuuluvia ministerin tehtäviä?621498Sakarjan kirjan 6. luku
Jolla korva on, se kuulkoon. Sain profetian 22.4.2023. Sen sisältö oli seuraava: Suomeen tulee nälänhätä niin, että se201276Avaa sydämesi mulle
❤ ❤❤ Tahdon pelkkää hyvää sulle Sillä ilmeisesti puhumalla Avoimesti välillämme Kaikki taas selviää Kerro kaikki, tahdo381180- 111168
Elia tulee vielä
Johannes Kastaja oli Elia, mutta Jeesus sanoi, että Elia tulee vielä. Malakian kirjan profetia Eliasta toteutuu kokonaan371163Nellietä Emmaa ja Amandaa stressaa
Ukkii minnuu Emmaa ja Amandaa stressaa ihan sikana joten voidaanko me koko kolmikko hypätä ukin kainaloon ja syleilyyn k101157