> > Uh... I don't understand. Why *Noah* as the point of lineal convergence? Noah entered the ark with his wife, his three sons, AND their wives. [...] I think there's no escaping it; we have to take the wives into consideration as direct progenitors. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here?
>
> You have got me! I never even thought about the wives of Noah's sons.
>
> Of course, my original statement that started this thread tangent was that we should all be able to trace our lineage back to Noah. I don't think I ever said there was no one else involved...
>

Well, your passing comment was, "If we could trace our ancestry back far enough, it all converge on one common ancestor." It's purely that phrase "converges on *ONE*" which made me wake up a bit and think about the entire scenario. :-) In retrospect, you obviously meant convergence through "one bloodline" paternally, and not through actual genetic convergence.

Curiously enough, ancient and modern Jews trace actual Jewish descent through the mother and not the father -- the background of the father determined which tribe his children would belong to, but a Jewish mother alone confers genetic Jewish status. A mother always knows who her children are. In a culture which took bloodlines and blood ties very seriously, I suppose this was the logical way to counteract any confusion due to having converts (to Judaism) marrying into the tribe.


> Gri"argumentative"shny

Nay! Please say it ain't so. Cousin Grish-NI, if I brought you the shrubbery now, would that be nigh sufficient to appease your noble conscience? ;-)

Wolf "a nice one. Not too expensive in relation" spirit