The khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi Jewry

The BBQ Pit
1

Continuing the discussion from New discussion thread for Israel/Gaza/West Bank (Hijacks tolerated):

@Babale said:

This surprises me, because the only person i know who was interested in the Khazar hypothesis was my father, who had red hair, blue eyes, fair skin, and Slavic features. (And the Slavs and Turks look similar to me. I’m pretty sure they interbred, too.) And he wasn’t an antisemite. He was also a supporter of the state of Israel, at least in small ways. (I don’t think he thought much or cared much about Israel, most of the time. But when it was at war, which was often when i was a kid, he always supported Israel.) He had a book about it, probably written in the 1970s, which i read as a teen.

And the gist of that book was that a tribe of Khazars converted to Judaism, because they were geographically between some militant Christians and some militant Moslems, and didn’t want to side with either. But also didn’t want to be murdered as pagans by their neighbors. And eventually they mingled with other Jews, and the Ashkenazi Jews of today descend from both groups.

This seems vaguely plausible to me, although centuries of rape and intermarriage could also explain the obvious European genes among Ashkenazi today. And also, it doesn’t seem even a little antisemitic. The Wikipedia article on the Khazars mentions this theory, and says,

Although there is evidence that the ruling elite of the Khazars had converted to Rabbinic Judaism in the 8th century,[20] the scope of the conversion to Judaism within the khanate remains uncertain.[21]

And
The late 19th century saw the emergence of the Khazar myth, the theory that the core of today’s Ashkenazi Jews are descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora that migrated westward into France and Germany. Linguistic and genetic studies have not supported the theory, and despite occasional support, most scholars view it with considerable skepticism.[25][21] The theory is sometimes associated with antisemitism.[26]

But it doesn’t say why it’s associated with antisemitism.

It also says, “Khazars are generally described by early Arab sources as having a white complexion, blue eyes, and reddish hair”, which sure sounds like my father’s whole extended family.

I’m putting this in the pit because the topic (antisemitism) seems best suited there. But I’m hoping to nonetheless have a constructive conversation.

Misinterpreted thread titles
2

The grain of truth there is that some of the tribal leaders did declare that they had converted to Judaism, but it was done for political reasons as you noted.

The idea that the whole Khazar steppe confederation population had converted to Judaism is quite farfetched and does not have any supporting evidence of the archeological record (and in fact even the story about the leaders converting to Judaism is potentially apocryphal, being sourced from a handful of letters; it could be entirely legendary).

The idea that the Ashkenazi population descends from Khazar converts rather than Jews who left Israel by force or by choice under the Roman Empire is an antisemitic conspiracy theory meant to erase the Jewish connection to the land. It is not borne out by the historical record or by genetic studies (despite a number of VERY motivated reasoners who tried their best to establish a connection).

This is probably before the hypothesis was debunked. I don’t think it was antisemitic to have heard the story and wondered if this is the origin of Ashkenazi Jews; a number of people did that throughout history. What is antisemitic is using motivated reasoning to continue to insist that this is the case now that it has been conclusively disproven.

It sounds a whole lot like a lot of Steppe peoples. Many Turkic people have red hair and green eyes, and the Chinese would comment on that when these cultures would make their way across the Eurasian Steppe to meet them in the borderlands. It’s like a blender, or a churning sea, in that way.

FWIW, I think the Khazars and the similar story of the
South Arabian Kingdom of Himyar (whose actual history is closer to the myth - they also converted to Judaism to avoid angering their neighbors, but Judaism became widespread there, with most of the elites and much of the population remaining Jewish for a century or more) are fascinating. There’s nothing antisemitic about being interested in them. There’s nothing inherently antisemitic about wondering whether they had anything to do with modern Jewish populations, like the Beta Israel (for Himyar) or Ashkenazi Jews (for the Khazars). It’s only when you ignore the evidence and use motivated reasoning to continue to argue for these theories after they’ve been conclusively debunked that you cross the line into anti-semitism.

3

I had heard this theory when I was basically a kid, so I didn’t remember that it was called the Khazar Theory. My nieghborhood (and high school) were majority Jewish, so I knew a lot of Jewish kids. A larger percentage of them were light or red-haired with light colored eyes, so the theory made sense to me.

I never thought about it again until very recently because of things I’d seen here in the Dope, so I appreciate being made aware of its basic non-historicity. The genetic studies not proving true is a big clue to me that it’s mostly not true. Maybe individuals or small groups converted but not more than that. I’m happy to not be liable to outing myself as a potential anti-semite though!

4

The whole story comes from a single set of letters between a Jewish advisor in Muslim Iberia and a Khan Yosef Ben Aharon who was supposedly King of the Khazars.

There might be mention of his name in another letter found elsewhere, but the Jewish communities of the era communicated with each other so it’s not unbelievable that an idea that originated in Iberia would appear on a letter found in Egypt.

I love the idea (and it allows one of the coolest playthroughs in Crusader Kings 3, starting as a Jewish Khazar, becoming Greatest of Khans, and uniting the Steppe while maintaining the Jewish tradition). But it really reminds me a lot of the Predator John story. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was entirely apocryphal.

Do note that even if we accept the letter as true, it doesn’t make a ton of sense as the origin of Ashkenazi Jews. Joseph supposedly sends a reply to the Jewish advisor, opening it by telling him how he received his letter:

I wish to inform you that your beautifully phrased letter was given us by Isaac, son of Eliezer, a Jew of the land of Germany [Isaac carried it through Germany, Hungary, and Kievan Rus to Khazaria.]

So the way that the Sephardic pen pal got his letters back and forth to the Khazar lands was by passing them through Jewish communities in Germany - IE, Ashkenazi Jews, who already existed at that time.

But if you’re bummed about the Khazar story being overblown, I’ll point you to the similar story of Himyar, the Jewish Kingdom of modern day Yemen:

5

I wouldn’t say I was “bummed.” I was just happy to know the truth.

Thanks for the Himyar story!

6

As do many of my family, and few people whose genetic origin is the middle east.

As i said, ordinary rape and intermarriage over hundreds of years is enough to explain why Russian Jews look more like Russian peasants than like Arabs. But re

Honestly, that’s too long ago to constitute a meaningful “connection to the land”. I feel a connection to the land i live on. I walk on it regularly; I’ve dug rocks out of garden beds; I’ve planted trees and vines; I’ve buried pets. I visited Israel and it was neat to see places that are referenced in the Bible. But it wasn’t “my land” the way my backyard is.

If that’s an antisemitic conspiracy, well, then an awful lot of ordinary things are antisemitic conspiracies.

Related: i wonder how different, genetically speaking, the German Jews are from the Russian Jews. Are we more Turkic than the German Jews? Have any studies been done?

7

That’s fine for you, but surely you recognize that you are in the minority when it comes to the way you practice Judaism in this respect. You’ve mentioned before that you were part of a Reconstructionist(I think?) congregation that removes references to Israel from prayers and the deemphasizes the connection to the land in a number of other ways. If that is how you want to engage with the faith, I certainly wouldn’t dream of telling you that you were doing it wrong. But I would hope that likewise, you wouldn’t dream of telling the wider majority of Jews whose practice of Judaism DOES tie back to their connection with the land of Israel that they are doing it wrong either.

8

I’m a member of a Reform congregation. We don’t “remove” Israel from our prayers, but we (my family? my friends?) interpret that as historical, not as central to our daily lives.

And i have no clue as to whether i am in a minority. You are the first American Jew to tell me that a connection to the land of Israel is central to your Judaism. But it isn’t the kind of thing that comes up very often.

9

Could it have been Arthur Koestler’s “The Thirteenth Tribe?”

10

Yes! Thanks.

11

The Jewish spaces I’ve been to have either been Conservative or Chabad (I am not a big fan aesthetically of synagogues that use electricity on services, even though I don’t keep Shabbat myself). And aside from one girl I knew on high school who was super pro-Palestinian to rebel against her parents (and who now lives in Israel, so she grew out of it :rofl:) you and other posters on this board are the only Jews I know who don’t view Israel as central to their experience of Judaism.

12

I think that the antisemitism comes in, not from thinking that it happened, but that it matters. The Jewish religion mostly doesn’t proselytize, and therefore most Jews are Jewish by ancestry, but conversions to Judaism are possible, and all Jews recognize converts as validly Jewish. So as long as there are any Jews who do have a continuity of descent from the land of Israel, and they recognize the Ashkenazi as being of the same people as themselves, why should it matter whether the Ashkenazi also have that continuity of descent?

13

Good summary of the antisemitic angle from the link:

Koestler’s book was praised by the neo-Nazi magazine The Thunderbolt as “the political bombshell of the century”,[13] and it was enthusiastically supported by followers of the Christian Identity movement.[3][15] According to Jeffrey Kaplan, The Thirteenth Tribe was “Identity’s primary source for the Khazar theory”; they felt Koestler’s book confirmed their own beliefs regarding Jews,[14][16] and sold it “through their mail order services”.[14] Goldstein writes that “Koestler and the Khazar theory he advanced lives on in the fever swamps of the white nationalist movement”.[17] Michael Barkun writes that Koestler was apparently “either unaware of or oblivious to the use anti-Semites had made of the Khazar theory since its introduction at the turn of the century.”[14]

I don’t think Koestler was anti-semitic for writing the book or that your dad was antisemitic for finding it interesting, but it’s undeniable that antisemites latched onto it because it told them exactly what they wanted to hear with a veneer of legitimacy.

14

When my mother took one of those tests, it just said she was Ashkenazi Jewish and shows basically all of Europe, including Eastern Europe as where she could have come from. Her father was German Jewish and her mother was Ukrainian Jewish.

So, I don’t think German Jews are that different, genetically, from Russian Jews.

Conversely, when my non-Jewish (mostly) father took the test, it could pinpoint different countries of ancestry (Germany, France, England, plus 1/4 Ashkenazi Jewish), which all lined up with where he thought his ancestors were from.

15

I haven’t researched the topic yet but one thing to note is that it was relatively common in last few centuries for different groups to more-or-less randomly associate themselves with some historic group.

E.g. the Germans decided that they were descended from the Aryans, the Poles decided that they’d come from the Sarmatians, Russians from the Scythians, Hungarians from the Huns, etc.

While it’s not impossible that some sort of legend successfully passed down and retained some nugget of truth, the greater likelihood with things like this are things like that 400 years ago, some 12 year old whose parents were 1st cousins or less, became king, heard a story about some mythic hero/saw a picture of some dude in fancy armor/received a gift from some exotic land/etc. and proclaimed himself a part of that bloodline, and then his advisors put together a fake history to make the king happy so he didn’t choose to execute them. And then that just became the accepted national history for the rest of time.

Granted, that sort of eventuality is probably smaller among a minority enclave who has no particular tyrannical, inbred leader within their own number. But I still would lean towards genetics, linguistic comparison, etc. over legend.

In history, “history” existed for purpose of propaganda, aggrandizing, petulant fancy, etc. Historicity was as important as getting the youngest and freshest wine.

16

That says that antisemites latched onto the book. It doesn’t say why, or what the antisemitic angle was. I guess I’ll have to read the link later, when i have more time.

Thanks.

17

The most classic form of antisemitism in the European context is the portrayal of the Jew as a stateless, rootless cosmopolitan; with no home of their own the Jews resort to leeching off of other societies; they wield money and influence to twist politicians to do their bidding, benefiting Jewry and parasitically hurting their hosts. The most obvious example is that this is precisely the portrayal of Jews that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust. But it’s also how Karl Marx describes Jews in On the Jewish Question, arguing that this is why Jews worship money and form an unholy alliance with capitalists.

The Khazar Hypothesis is taken by Neo-Nazis as proof that their theories about Jews are correct; that’s what the Wiki article means when it says,

18

I don’t see how it affects the “stateless, rootless, cosmopolitan” nature of an ethnic group whether their historical origin is among the turkish tribes of the steppes or among the semitic tribes of the middle east. But maybe the wiki says more.

19

Jews: “we are not rootless, we have a long history starting thousands of years ago in Israel.”

Anti-Semites: “you are lying. You are Khazars who made up the Judaism story in order to manipulate and control your betters.”

20

I’m not familiar with the khazar hypothesis (or I’ve forgotten it from long ago) so when I saw the title I first connected it to this Yiddish term. (Definitions conflated from AI for readability.)

Chazer: (often spelled chazir, chozzer, khazer, or kazer) Literal meaning: A pig or pork. Slang for a person: A greedy person, a glutton, or a messy eater

Chazerai (חזערײַ): Derived from the word for pig (khazer), used to describe cheap junk, bad food, or worthless garbage.

Did the Yiddish term derive from this supposed history or is it just a linguistic coincidence? It’s from the Hebrew for pig.