In this age of brain-dead media programmed zombies, would it  still be possible for the facts to speak? If so, there is something worth  saying about the modern "Jewish" race, not written by anti-semites, but by  Jews themselves—and where else but in The Jewish Encyclopedia! Please excuse  me for being so abrupt, but I had to get your attention. You see, this article  is worth reading because it has some facts that you need to know about the  authenticity of today's Jewish race. The question that must be asked as well  as answered is simple: Are the modern Jews really the descendants of the  ancient people of Israel? The source of our information is also quite simple:  The Jewish Encyclopedia. Hopefully we will not find any anti-Semitism in the  writings of these Jewish scholars. However, the reader should be forewarned.  Their articles were written long before the age of mass-media social  engineering and do not contain any of the familiar buzz-words common to  today's new views. In other words, brace yourself for a factual scientific  analysis of the racial origins of the modern Jews. Oh, and should you decide  to verify any of these facts, you will find them in your local library in the  1901-1905 edition of The Jewish Encyclopedia. So, please, do read  on.

At the turn of the last century there was great interest stirring  in the science of anthropology. In the wake of this, Jewish scholarship turned  its watchful eye upon itself and began to examine the racial claims that  modern Jews make to the ancestral heritage of ancient Israel. The results were  startling. The religious community found itself completely alienated by its  scientific counterpart. The scientific method was coming face to face with  religious traditions and there was a great unsettling in the land. The facts  were telling a different story than what had been heard for centuries in the  local synagogue. In his article on Purity of Race, Joseph Jacobs relates  something of the dilemma that was gripping the Jewish community at this time.  He writes: "The question whether the Jews of today are in the main  descended from the Jews of Bible times, and from them alone, is still  undecided" (Jew. Enc. X (1905), 283). What a startling  statement to come from a Jewish scholar and to be printed in The Jewish  Encyclopedia! However, scholarship must have its reasons. Let us look further  to see what the scientific community had discovered that would warrant such a  radical and perplexing statement.

In his article on Purity of Race,  Jacobs gives several important facts that were forcing anthropologists of his  day to reconsider the modern Jew's racial claims to be Biblical Israel. In the  study of craniometry which involves the measurements of the skull, the  evidence was clearly mounting against the modern Jews. After extensive samples  were taken from a broad spectrum of Jewish groups world-wide. The conclusion  was evident. Jacobs writes; "They are predominantly brachycephalic, or  broad-headed, while the Semites of Arabic origin are invariably  dolichocephalic, or long-headed" (Jew. Enc. X (1905), 284). Simply  put, all known Semites have historically been long-headed, but the modern Jews  were predominantly round-headed! While Jacobs avoids drawing any personal  conclusions, he relates a prevailing view of his time: "Some  anthropologist are inclined to associate the racial origins of the Jews, not  with the Semites, whose language they adopted, but with the Armenians and  Hittites of Mesopotamia, whose broad skulls and curved noses they appear to  have inherited" (Jew. Enc. X (1905), 284). The  findings of some anthropologist were leading them to conclude that the modern  Jews were not in fact Semites at all. but rather descendants of the ancient  Hittites. Jacobs however was personally hesitant to confess that the Jews were  not the Jews, simply because of the profound implications it imposed. He also  wrote the article on Anthropology and there declared: "Much turns upon  the preliminary question whether contemporary Jews are of the same race as  those mentioned in the Bible" (Jew. Enc. I (1901), 619). Jacobs  obviously realized the implications of the data he was receiving. It suggested  the revolutionary idea that the Jews were not in fact the Jews. He again  presented the anthropological evidence the cranial measurements of the modern  Jews, stating: "Their skulls are mainly brachycephalic; that is, the  breadth is generally over 80 per cent of the length. This has been used as an  argument against the purity of race, as most Semites—like the Arabs and  Syrians—are dolichocephalic, or long-headed" (Jew, Enc. I (1901), 619). Jacobs avoids any personal conclusions. He was the former  president of The Jewish Historical Society of England and obviously could not  bring himself to break with the great strength of the "Jewish"  tradition.

But Jacobs was not the only Jewish scholar of his day that  was attempting to come to terms with the startling discoveries of his time.  After all, it was the talk of the Jewish community. The haunting question  persisted, Were the Jews really the Jews? In his article on Craniometry,  Jewish scholar Maurice Fishberg provides a more comprehensive treatment of the  "Jewish" cranial findings that were turning the Jewish world upside down.  Moreover, Fishberg was a licensed medical Doctor and a medical examiner in New  York City. He was clearly an expert in his field and eminently qualified to  comment on the data at hand. Unlike Jacobs who was tied to the Jewish  historical society, Fishberg presents the facts much more objectively.  Forthwith, he declares: "As is at present accepted by nearly all  anthropologists, the shape of the head is the most stable characteristic of a  given race" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 335). The article by  Fishberg is thoroughly educational as well as informative. His scientific  frame of reference is immediately evident. He includes numerous charts and  statistics, a complete inventory of all the cranial data collected on the Jews  to date. Fishberg also gives an understanding of some of the basic concepts  and terminology. He writes: "The cephalic index is expressed by  multiplying the width of the head by 100 and dividing the product by the  length ...The broader or rounder the head is, the higher its cephalic index,  and vice versa. When the cephalic index is above 80 anthropologist term it  'brachycephalic'; between 75 and 80, 'mesocephalic'; and less than 75,  'dolichocephalic"' (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 333). Dr. Fishberg then  proceeds to present all the Jewish cranial findings in classical scientific  form. He writes: "Appended is a table of nearly 3,000 Jewish heads, from  various countries, measured during the last twenty years" (Jew. Enc.  IV (1902), 333). In the table that follows, there is not one Jewish head that  has a cephalic index below 80, and they are taken from a wide variety of  countries spread throughout Europe, Russia, and Asia Minor. Fishberg comments  on the data: "On an examination of the figures in this table a  remarkable uniformity of the cephalic index of the modern Jews will be  noticed....nearly 90 per cent are between 81.5 and 83 ...Another remarkable  fact is the striking absence of the dolichocephalic type, which is  characteristic of all the other modern Semitic races" (Jew. Enc. IV  (1902), 334). Dr. Fishberg also presents a large graphic chart which shows the  cephalic indexes of the Jews by percentage. This chart peaks upward at the  cephalic index measurement of 82, indicating the average Jewish mean. Fishberg  comments on the overall percentage factor: "What is worthy of notice is  the small percentage of dolichocephaly—only 1.58 percent—and the large  preponderance of brachycephaly, 76.48 per cent" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902),  334). The Jewish medical examiner also confirms the representative nature of  his findings. He states: "The cephalic indexes from which this curve was  obtained were those of Jews in various parts of the world" (Jew. Enc.  IV (1902L 331). Fishberg then provides a table of cephalic  indexes by gender which shows little significant difference. He writes:  "There appears no perceptible difference between the cephalic index of  Jews and that of Jewesses" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 335). Finally,  Fishberg addresses the most obvious and confronting problem with his findings,  specifically how they relate to the racial claims of the modern Jews. He  writes: "The most important problem suggested by a study of  craniometrical results concerning Jews is the relation of the type head of the  modern Jews to that of the ancient Hebrews and to the modern Semitic skulls.  The pure Semitic skull is dolichocephalic, as may be seen from a study of the  heads of modern Arabs, Abyssinians, Syrians . . . . The only way the type of  the head may change is by intermixture with other races. If the ancient  Hebrews were of the same stock as the modern non-Jewish Semites, and if the  modern Jews are their descendants, then a pure dolichocephalic type of head  would be expected among the Jews. As has been seen, all results of craniometry  prove that the Jews are brachycephalic, and that the dolichocephalic form is  only found among them in less than two percent of the cases" (Jew.  Enc. IV (1902), 335). Fishberg presents an excellent summary of the problem.  If the modern Jews are descendants of the ancient Hebrews and are supposed to  be Semites, then dolichocephalic skulls would be expected. However, the exact  opposite is true. The Jews are predominantly round-headed. Fishberg provides  some other cranial data, but draws no further conclusions. The factual data he  presents, however, is some of the most incriminating evidence to have ever  been collected against the racial claims of the modern Jews.

Like the  shape of the skull, the shape and configuration of the nose is another  important racial index that was recognized by anthropologist at the turn of  the century. It is also another clear sign against the modern Jew's racial  claims to be Biblical Israel. It turns out that the so called "Jewish nose" is  not Jewish at all, but rather comes from the ancient Hittites, as do also  their round skulls. Dr. Fishberg is also the author of the article on the  Nose. On the importance of this area as a racial index, the Jewish medical  examiner writes: "The relation of the breadth of the nose to its length,  known as the `nasal index,' has been considered one of the best means of  distinguishing the various races of mankind" (Jew. Enc. IX (1905),  339). Fishberg proceeds to present a table of the nasal indexes of the modern  Jews. Their marked similarity to one another and peculiarity to others again  predominates in this table. Joseph Jacobs, in his article on Anthropology,  also mentioned the peculiarity of the Jewish nose, stating: "The nose is  generally the characteristic feature of the Jews, who have, on the average,  the longest (77 ram) and narrowest (34 mm)" (Jew. Enc. I (1901), 619).  In attempting to address this peculiarity, Fishberg presents some of the  current thinking circulating among the anthropologist of his day. He writes:  "Some authors show that this form of nose is not characteristically  Semitic, because the modern non-Jewish Semites, particularly such as are  supposed to have maintained themselves in a pure state, as the bedouin Arabs,  do not possess this characteristic nose at all Their noses are as a rule  short, straight, and often 'snub' or concave. Luschan holds that the hook-nose  is by no means characteristic of the Semites, and contends that the number of  arched noses that are found among the Jews is due to ancient intermixture with  the Hittites in Asia Minor. He shows that other races also, as the Armenian,  for instance, who have a good portion of Hittite blood in their veins, have  hook-noses" (Jew. Enc. IX (1905), 338). Thus, the notorious "Jewish"  hook-nose is another clear sign to the true racial origins of the modern  Jews.

According to all the racial indicators recognized by leading  anthropologist at the turn of the century, the modern Jews have more in common  with the ancient Hittites, than with the ancient Israelites. In another early  publication written about the same time, this statement is found in the  article on the Hittites: "The human type is always brachycephalic  [round-headed], with brow receding sharply and long nose making almost one  line with the sloping forehead. In the sculptures of the Commagene and the  Tyana districts, the nose has a long curving tip, of very Jewish appearance"  (Enc. Brit. XIII (1910), 537). It should be evidently now that the  round-headed hook-nosed Jews of today have a definite racial connection with  the ancient Hittites, remembering or course what Joseph Jacobs wrote:  "Some anthropologists are inclined to associate the racial origins of  the Jews, not with the Semites, whose language they adopted, but with the  Armenians and Hittites of Mesopotamia, whose broad skulls and cuffed noses  they appear to have inherited" (Jew. Enc. X (1903), 264). Moreover, a portrait of one of these Hittites taken from a  sculptural relief found on the tomb of an Egyptian Pharaoh clearly reveals  what looks like a typical modern Jew (Jew. Enc. VI (1904), 427). The  resemblance is so startling it is uncanny! In light of this, and all the other  scientific evidence, confirmed and verified, it should be enough to convince  any rational person that the modern Jews are standing on very shaky ground in  their racial claims to be descendants of Biblical Israel. If you don't believe  me just read The Jewish Encyclopedia, remembering of course that there is  nothing anti- Semitic about it. After all, the Hittites were not Semites at  all. hittites.htm

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/