Re: [tied] Re: Croatian: Etymology

>> > Yes, if your mother was Jewish at the time of your birth, you

are
Jewish.

>
>> > But one can also convert to Judaism, and it is conversion, at

least among

>> the upper classes, which is the present case. The child of a
>> > converted Jewish mother is as Jewish by birth as any other

Jew.

>
>> AFAIK, Judaism is mainly the belief that Jews are the chosen

people,
and

>> thus, to a Jew, the conversion to Judaism would seem as an atmept

to
senak

>> to the chosen people. The Jews didn't willingly let others convert

to

>> Judaism, and there weren't many people willing to convert.

>This is not strictly true. There were periods in time in which
>Judaism has been a proselitising religion. Khazar history speaks of
>Khagan Bulan, (whose mother WAS Jewish), "called upon the
>representatives of Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedanism to
>expound
>their doctrines before him. This discussion convinced him that the
>Jewish faith was the most preferable, and he decided to embrace it.
>Thereupon he and about 4,000 Khazars were circumcised"

Well, to me it seems to be a later inset. There were many things
invented to account for the Khazars being taken into Judaism (I remember
that the3re was a belief that the Khazars were "the lost tribe of [I
don't remember whom]". They don't seem to come from Canaan, tyhough, so
they can't be a Jewish tribe. Ergo, the fact was invented.

>There have been other periods in which large numbers of people
>converted to Judaism. Arabs in the period before Muhammed were
>converting in droves. King Abraha of Yemen, adopted Judaism as
>state religion in the 570's, as a way of asserting Yeminite
>independence from both Christian Abbyssina and the Zoroastrian
>Sassanids. There were also "gentilic Jews" at the time of Christ who
>were attracted to the ethical position of Judaism.

>> > The Khazars are obscure, and would be virtually forgotten was it

not for

>> the religious connection. While their language is said to be

Turkic,
when

>> > dealing with Steppe peoples, language and ethnicity have to be

carefully

>> looked at. The Khazars certainly did not meet the usual expectation

of

>> omadic
>> > Turkics wandering west, but were rather sedentary. Their center

was also

> the Volga-North Caucusus, which raises additional questions. This

region

> > is an ethno-linguistic goulash. Language replacement would seem

to be a

> factor here. Turkic may have been their chancery language/lingua

franca.

>
>> It seems that the Khazars themselves were nomads who settled down

in
the

>> region, and, having fought off the Alans and the pressing Arabs,

established

>> a thriving Caganate. However, late they fell victims to the Arabic
>> onslaught, and were pressed north into the Volga delta. And then

the
Jews,

>> who were persecuted in the Islam states, came there.

>Jews have been rarely persecuted in medieval Islam. As dhimmi
>peoples
>they were considered "People of the Book" - misguided, but
>essentially
>having received prophets from God.

>The persecution of Jews in fact came earlier under the Mazdean heresy
>of Zoroastrianism. It was one of the reasons why Jewish populations
>in the Khazar lands was quite high at the time of 622, when Heraclius
>appealed for Khazar help against Khusrau and the Sassanids.

Yes, indeed. The Mazdean belief (which was, if I remember rightly,
aggressive) was the main reason for the Jews of the rich Arabian trade
towns to move north and settle in another important region-the
crossroads of trade ways from Biarmia to Baghdad and from China to
Europe.

>>The power went

to

>> offsrpings of Khazar men, and Jewish women, because such a child

would be a

>> Khazar (which gave all the advantages as a son of a Khazar noble),

and a Jew

>> by virtue of being a son of a Jewess. The real Khazars, who had no

dealings

>> with Jews, just didn't pop up.

>The Khazar ruling class were "real" Khazars. By the time of
>Khagan Obediah, Jewish Khazars were everywhere, and evidence shows
>pagan Khazar symbols in grave yards had completely disappeared to be
>replaced with Jewish icons.

Whom did they "rule" then? themselves? The disappearance of pagan
symbols may be as well explained by the fact that Khaar religion was
persecuted by the ruling Jews. Besides, AFAIK, the Khazars just didn't
have actual graveyards, they left their dead lying on tops of hills.

>> > for the religious issue, it is to be noted they fought off the

Islamics

>> near the Caspian; they also seem to have not been on the best terms

with the

>> > Byzantines. Instead of Christianity or Islam, they seem to have

chosen

>> Judaism as a way to keeping apart from either. It should also be

stressed,

> I
>> > think, is that normative Rabbinical Judiasm was not the

monolithic thing

> it is today.
>
>> AFAIK The Khazar people (not the nobiltiy, but the herders of the
>delta)
>> retained the original Steppe religion (we don't know whether it was
>> paganistic or the monetheistic Tengri-khan belief). THEY didn't
>"choose"
>> Judaism, they fell victims to the Jewish rule.

>There was not much "victimisation" here. Certainly no persecution or
>forced conversions at the point of a sword (like there were for
>Christianity). The Khazar realm was amazingly tollerant. Saint
>Cyril, who established orthodoxy amongst the Slavs tried to convert
>the Jewish Khazars but had no luck, they were happy with their faith
>(far from being victims). He shifted the focus of his missionary
>activity - with the results that history confirms.

The realm WAS tolerant, and that was the reason that a trade colony of
the rahdonites in Semender grew into a ruling class. I believe that
there WAS persecution. That's the usual thing when you chage a religion.
The ruling Jews, I believe, didn't care much for the Khazar people, so
lonmg as they gave them something to eat.

>> > There is a lot of controversy here. It's a fascinating question,

though.

>
> Yes, it is
> I really don't know of any Western scientists who worked on the

subject, but

> in Russia L. Gumilev and M. Artamonov are worth mentioning.
>In your earlier post you wrote

>> This is my first post, so sorry for any slips ,
>> As far as my knowledge of the Khazar Caganate (not Khanate,

definitely)

>> lasts, the Khazars were a people akin to the Mongols. They

established a

>> powerful state around the 8th century in the North Caucasus and

lower Volga.

>It would appear that the Khazars were Western Turks. The differences
>between Turkish and Mongol languages was deep. Some have argued that
>Altaic is a phylum not even a language family, so deep are the
>differences. I also understand that the Khazar term for their
>government was Khaganata. "Khan" was a term given later to Chingis
>as
>a late Mongol adaptation of the earlier Turkish term.

Yes. The word Qahan is even stated to have parallel to Dakota waqan
"ruler" (if i remember rightly)

> However, the country was subject to an influx of Jews due to its

strategic

> position, and finally the state authority passed to the Jews.

>From the early 700 there was almost 30 years of continuous warfare
>with the late Ommayyads. At first things went well for the Khazars,
>ably led by their able general ((the Khagan's son, Barjik, who isbest
>known for decapitating an Arab general and using his head as a
>decoration for his throne), the Khazars began to be pushed back into
>their homeland. When Barjik was killed and the Arabs were at the
>gates
>of the Khazar capital of Samander, the reigning Khagan surrendered
>and
>agreed to convert to Islam. The new Arab commander, Marwan
>al-Ummayyad, withdrew his forces to fight rebelling elements in the
>Caliphate. He was soon crowned Caliph of all Islam but he was killed
>in 750 when the Abbasid family came to power and massacred most of
>the
>Ummayyad house. It is very likely that the success and popularity of
>the Abbasid rebellion was due in part to the Ummayyad dynasty's
>costly
>wars in Khazaria.

>Gottesman's belief is that Khazar military leaders feared the
>Khagan's
>new conversion to Islam and staged a coup, leaving him as a
>figurehead
>without power and elevating the bek, or supreme general, (Bulan) to
>the status of a hereditary monarch.

Regards,
Pavel