✡️ 🇮🇱NiceJewishMama🥣

😂😂

Right so now that you had time to digest my previous post with 3 peer reviewed genetic studies showing the irrefutable evidence of strong Levantine DNA in Ancient Romans, let’s move to the second topic. The 1st-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and later estimates suggested that by the height of the Roman Empire, converted practicing Jews made up roughly 6 to 10% of the entire empire's population, with a massive community right in the city of Rome. Many Romans didn't undergo a full, formal conversion (which, for men, required circumcision and was viewed by Roman elite society as a form of self-mutilation). Instead, a massive social trend emerged of Romans becoming Theosebeis or "God-Fearers"—pagans who kept the Jewish Sabbath, attended synagogues, avoided pork, and believed in the Jewish God, while still retaining their civil Roman identities. The practices were passed on until the next generation because just of Jewish faith. This is well documented and widely understood as such. So what is statistically more probable to be the ancestor of the Ashkenazi? About 15k Judeans who left in the 135AD event and might have made it to Europe (and survived the dark ages) or A large number of Roman converts, mostly wealthy, who then spread across the Roman Empire? References: Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (1993) Louis H. Feldman (Princeton University Press)  Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire (1994) Martin Goodman (Oxford University Press)  The Beginnings of Jewishness (1999) Shaye J.D. Cohen (University of California Press)