The Concept of Ethnicity in the Bible and the Contemporary Significance of Genetic Research

Cheol-young Lee

Head of the International Affairs Research Association

The question “What is a nation?” has produced diverse definitions depending on the historical context and intellectual framework. Ernest Renan, in his 1882 lecture, defined a nation as a community bound together by a shared memory and the collective will to live together. Anthony D. Smith (1989) described a nation as a group united by a common name, ancestral myths, history, culture, territory, and a sense of solidarity. By contrast, Eric Hobsbawm (1990) argued that the concept of nation was a constructed product of the political necessities that accompanied the rise of the modern state.

Today, the concept of nation is generally understood as a composite identity, shaped by the interplay of language, religion, culture, history, and political cohesion. However, the biblical concept of nation is explicitly genealogical. The book of Genesis explains the origins of the world’s nations through the descendants of Noah’s three sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—and further narrates how Abraham’s descendants diverged into separate nations through Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau. Thus, in the biblical worldview, a nation is defined not by cultural identity but by biological descent, i.e., the flow of bloodlines.

This distinction suggests that serious misunderstandings may arise when biblical prophecies or interpretations concerning nations are applied using the modern notion of nationhood. Whereas modern nations have often been shaped by cycles of division and unification, and at times by political or cultural invention, the Bible primarily defines nations through the lens of “bloodline.” The pressing question, then, is how to bridge the conceptual gap between biblical nations and modern nations. The most persuasive link lies in genetic research. As a scientific record of lineage, genetic data provides a key to empirically contextualizing the relationship between the biblical notion of nation and modern populations.

Tracing the Origins of Arabs through Genetic Research

Hajjej et al. (2018) published the first meta-study in genetic anthropology covering more than 16,000 individuals from 36 countries across the Middle East, North Africa, and adjacent regions. Their research identified four major genetic clusters among Arab populations:

Group 1: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, and North African countries. These populations, traditionally regarded as descendants of Ishmael, exhibit high genetic homogeneity. Even North Africans, despite their Berber ancestry, share strong genetic markers with Arabian populations. This reflects the large-scale migration following Arabization in the 7th century.

Group 2: Levantine Arabs (Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians), Egyptians, and Iraqis. These groups display strong genetic similarity with one another, yet clear genetic distinctiveness from Saudi Arabian Arabs. This indicates the relative preservation of indigenous populations in these regions even after the Islamic conquests of the 7th century.

Group 3: Sudan and Comoros. These groups show genetic features consistent with Sub-Saharan African populations.

Group 4: Oman, UAE, and Bahrain. These populations reflect a high degree of admixture with genes from Pakistan, India, Iran, Sardinia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, a consequence of their historically strategic commercial position. As such, they are distinct from the two dominant clusters (North African–Saudi and Levantine).

From a biblical perspective, the most significant of these is Group 2, particularly the Levantine Arabs, whose geographic distribution centers around the biblical land of Canaan. This group has the strongest potential for direct continuity with the peoples described in the Old Testament.

Ancient DNA and the Canaanite Legacy among Levantine Arabs

Agranat-Tamir et al. (2020) analyzed genomes from 93 skeletal remains excavated from nine sites in the ancient Canaanite region, including Megiddo, Ashkelon, and Sidon, spanning the Bronze to early Iron Ages. The study revealed that these individuals shared high genetic similarity, suggesting that the Canaanites constituted not merely a cultural entity but a genuine lineage-based community. Strikingly, these ancient genomes exhibit strong genetic affinity with today’s Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians, while remaining distinct from Saudi Arabian Arabs. This finding recalls Judges 2:3, where God declares, “I will not drive them out before you; they will become thorns in your sides.” The Israelites coexisted with the Canaanites, who subsequently became a persistent adversary throughout their history. In this light, the enduring conflicts between modern Israel, Palestine, and neighboring Arab nations can be seen as echoing a biblical pattern, with genetics offering empirical support to the continuity of this historical tension.

The Relationship with Jews: Canaanite Admixture and Priestly Lineage Preservation

One particularly striking outcome of this research is the evidence that Jews, too, share genetic commonality with the ancient Canaanites and Levantine Arabs. Although Jews trace their descent from Abraham through Isaac, and Saudi Arabian Arabs trace their descent through Ishmael, modern Jews appear genetically closer to the ancient Canaanites than to Saudi Arabian Arabs. At first glance, this may appear paradoxical. Yet it aligns with the biblical record in Judges 3:5–6, which describes how the Israelites intermarried with the Canaanites and lived among them:

“The Israelites lived among the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. They took their daughters in marriage and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods” (Judg. 3:5–6).

Conversely, Hammer et al. (2009) identified a notable exception within Jewish population structure: the priestly caste known as the Cohanim. Their genetic markers show significant similarity with Saudi Arabian Arabs. This aligns with the biblical account of the Levite priesthood maintaining stricter boundaries against intermarriage, thereby preserving their genealogical purity. Whereas other tribes of Israel likely became genetically closer to the Canaanites through admixture, the priestly lineage retained a more direct descent from Abraham and Isaac, exhibiting genetic continuity with their Semitic kin in Arabia. Such findings demonstrate how different genealogical trajectories unfolded within Israel itself, with some lineages undergoing admixture and others preserving their ancestral heritage. They also illustrate how genetics can corroborate biblical records of Israel’s internal history and the preservation of priestly genealogies.

Sidon, Tyre, and Phoenicia: Intersection of the Bible and Genetics

The Old Testament distinguishes between the Canaanites and the peoples of Sidon and Tyre. Genesis 10 lists Sidon as the firstborn of Canaan, yet Joshua 13 differentiates Sidonians from the Canaanites. This indicates that the population of Sidon was perceived as distinct from the broader Canaanite group. Agranat-Tamir et al. (2020) confirmed this through archaeogenetic data: skeletal remains from Sidon, while closely related to other Canaanite remains, exhibited distinct genetic markers, suggesting a unique population identity. This raises the question: who were these people, similar to yet distinct from the Canaanites? Many scholars identify them with the Phoenicians, famed for their maritime colonies (including Carthage), their alphabetic script, and their role in ancient Mediterranean trade.

Haber (2017) reported that ancient Sidonian genomes share 93% genetic continuity with modern Lebanese, indicating strong descent. This stands in contrast with Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians, who share only about 50% or slightly more similarity with the ancient Canaanites. Thus, modern Lebanese likely preserve a more direct Phoenician lineage than North African populations, where Phoenician genetic influence was diluted through admixture with Berber populations.

A key tension arises, however, in the classification of the Phoenicians. Modern scholarship classifies them as Semitic due to their use of a Semitic language, whereas the biblical genealogy records Sidon as a son of Canaan, and therefore of Ham. The most reasonable interpretation is that the biblical classification is genealogical, whereas modern anthropology and linguistics classify populations primarily by language. Thus, while biblically the Phoenicians belong to the Hamitic line, linguistically they fall within the Semitic category.

The New Testament offers further nuance. In Mark 7, Jesus encounters a “Syrophoenician woman,” reflecting that Tyre and Sidon were under the Roman province of Syria. Yet in Matthew 15, the same figure is described as a “Canaanite woman,” demonstrating that by the New Testament period, the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon were regarded as Canaanites. Hence, the Phoenicians occupied a shifting identity: genealogically Hamitic, linguistically Semitic, and historically classified differently across biblical periods.

In conclusion, Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians can be understood as descendants of the biblical Canaanites, while modern Lebanese trace descent more directly from the Phoenicians of Sidon and Tyre. This synthesis demonstrates remarkable coherence among biblical texts, historical traditions, and contemporary genetic evidence.

Syria and the Assyrian People

Assyria and Syria are often conflated, yet they represent entirely distinct peoples. Genesis 10 identifies Assyria as descended from Shem, whereas modern genetic studies reveal that Syrians are primarily Hamitic, closely related to the Canaanites.

The confusion likely arises for two reasons. First, the similarity in pronunciation between “Assyria” (Asshur) and “Syria” has led to misidentification, though the Hebrew Bible distinguishes the two clearly: Assyria is אשור (Ashur), while Syria is סוריה (Suriyah). Second, the concept of a “Syrian nation” emerged only after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, when the inhabitants of the region sought to redefine their identity, possibly appropriating the prestige of the ancient Assyrian empire. In this sense, modern Syrian identity reflects Hobsbawm’s thesis that nations are often constructed in response to modern political needs.

In the Bible, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan are mentioned only as geographical regions, not as nations in the genealogical sense. This suggests that these identities are modern constructs, not biblical lineages.

By contrast, the Assyrians remain a distinct ethnic group today, residing primarily in northern Iraq, northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and western Iran, with diaspora communities in the United States, Australia, and Europe. Remarkably, most Assyrians maintain a Christian identity, tracing their faith back to the repentance of Nineveh in Jonah’s time. Isaiah 19 prophesies that Israel, Egypt, and Assyria together will be a blessing in the midst of the earth. The high rate of Christian faith among Assyrians today may be seen as a partial fulfillment of this prophecy. Syrians, however, remain largely un-evangelized, rooted in their Canaanite heritage and Arabized identity. Thus, despite phonetic resemblance, Assyrians and Syrians differ fundamentally in their origins and identity.

Conclusion: Genetics as a Key to Biblical Interpretation

The Bible defines nations not in terms of culture or statehood but in terms of lineage. Modern nations, by contrast, are pluralistic and dynamic, shaped by language, culture, politics, and shifting allegiances. Despite this disparity, understanding biblical prophecy and history requires close attention to genealogical descent—that is, to genetic data.

Yet, genetic research remains underutilized in contemporary theology and biblical interpretation. While we must not uncritically absolutize genetic findings—since genetics, like all sciences, has its limitations—it nonetheless provides a powerful tool for bridging the gap between biblical and modern notions of nationhood. Genetics enables more precise exegesis of biblical texts, while also offering insights into the roots of modern ethnic conflicts. Thus, it can serve as both a hermeneutical key for Scripture and an analytical framework for understanding ongoing realities in the modern world. References Agranat-Tamir, L., Waldman, S., Martin, M. A. S., Finkelstein, I., Carmel, L., & Reich, D. (2020). The genomic history of the Bronze Age Southern Levant. Cell, 181(5), 1146–1157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.024

Haber, M., Doumet-Serhal, C., Scheib, C., Zalloua, P., Kivisild, T., & Tyler-Smith, C. (2017). Continuity and admixture in the last five millennia of Levantine history from ancient Canaanite and present-day Lebanese genome sequences. American Journal of Human Genetics, 101(2), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.013

Hajjej, A., Almawi, W., Arnaiz-Villena, A., Hattab, L., & Hmida, S. (2018). The genetic heterogeneity of Arab populations as inferred from HLA genes. PLOS ONE, 13(3), e0192269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192269

Hammer, M. F., Behar, D. M., Karafet, T. M., Mendez, F. L., Hallmark, B., Erez, T., Zhivotovsky, L. A., Rosset, S., & Skorecki, K. (2009). Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood. Human Genetics, 126(5), 707–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-009-0727-5

Hobsbawm, E. (1990). Nations and nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth, reality. Cambridge University Press.

Renan, E. (1882). Qu’est-ce qu’une nation? Conférence faite en Sorbonne, le 11 mars 1882. Calmann Lévy.

Smith, A. D. (1989). The origins of nations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 12(3), 340–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1989.9993639