404 - Truth in History
"Lecture":
by Elieser Bassin, C.M.,Ph.B.
On my arrival in England, for the first time, in 1876, I heard of the theory that the British people are the descendants of the Ten Tribes of Israel. Many a time Christian friends asked me what I thought of that theory, and my answer generally was, I would gladly accept the British as my brethren, the children of Abraham, but I do not know how such a theory can be established. How is it possible that such a mixed race, like the British, made up of the Welsh Kymry, the Keltic ancient Britons, the Picts and Scots, and Scythian Angles, the Teutonic or Gothic Saxons, the Danes and Normans, could ever have been brethren, the children of one father, Israel? Until the beginning of 1884, I looked upon the theory as curious, and only a crotchet, although I had never meditated on the subject for ten minutes, because I thought that it was not worth while to give the slightest attention to such an apparently ridiculous theory. But now that I have given great attention, both in reading and reflection, to the subject of the Identity of the British nation with the Ten Tribes of Israel, I have come to the conclusion that the subject is highly interesting, and of great importance to Christians and to Jews.
I cannot enter fully into the particulars of my views in the limits of one lecture; but I hope, by the help of God, to bring them out clearly in my lectures on "Gods Dealings with His Chosen People Israel," which I intend to deliver by-and-by. Meanwhile, I will endeavour to give you an outline of the reasons why I believe that the British nation is identical with the ancient kingdom of Israel. And I entreat you, dear friends, in the words of the Right Rev. Dr. Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool, in his tract, "Scattered and Gathered," "not to dismiss the subject as speculative, fanciful, and unprofitable." The world is growing old; the last days are come upon us; the foundations of the earth are out of course; the ancient institutions of society are wearing out and going to pieces. The end of all is things at hand. Surely it becomes a wise man at a time like this, to turn to the pages of prophecy, and inquire what is yet to come? At a time like this the declaration of God concerning His people Israel ought to be carefully weighed and examined. At the time of the end, says Daniel, "the wise shall understand" (Daniel 12:10).
The words just quoted from the Bishop of Liverpool are of great value to us, although the venerable Bishop applies it to the Jews, who are only a small part of Israel. The tract is very interesting, but I am sorry that the author makes no difference in it between the two Houses of Israel and Judah. We know, from 1 Kings 12, of the separation between Judah and Israel: but we know of no union that took place between them.
The Lord, for His wise ends, separated and kept them apart for nearly three thousand years: and during most of the time Israel was unknown, according to Hosea 1:9, while the Jews were known as a by-word and reproach, according to Jeremiah 24:9. One part of the prophecies has been fulfilled in the case of one section of Israel; and a second part has to be fulfilled in the case of the other section of Jacobs descendants.
The time of their union has not yet come; but there is a glorious and blessed union still in store for Judah and Israel. According to Zechariah 10:6-12. The House of Israel, which is now lost and hidden from the sight of men, must be found before the glorious union of Judah and Israel takes place. Israel will be found by the world; and it has been found in these latter days by many, and also by me.
And now, after these few introductory remarks, I will tell you how and where I found the Lost Tribes of the House of Israel. Some of you will remember the lecture I had the privilege of delivering last February in the parish church of this town on behalf of my persecuted brethren. After that lecture a lady whom I now see in the hall handed me the Rev. Dr. Pooles "Fifty Reasons Why the Anglo-Saxons are Israelites." The Rev. Mr. Jameson, your parish minister, who presided on that occasion, and my friend, General Hogan, who is now in the chair, will perhaps recollect my jesting on the subject of Identity, which I then considered to be an absurdly extravagant theory.
Next morning I left for Aberdeen, and being about six hours in the train, I had time to read carefully Dr. Pooles pamphlet. I took my Hebrew Bible and began to examine the passages referred to, and was so intent on studying the subject, that for some minutes after the train had stopped I did not notice its arrival in Aberdeen. With all the arguments in that pamphlet I could not agree, but from that time I began to think over the subject with an unprejudiced desire to discover the truth in regard to the matter for its own sake. I was very much encouraged to search for the Lost Tribes in Britain by the quotation of Rev. Dr. Poole from Dr. Abbadie, of Amsterdam, who said in 1723, "Unless the Ten Tribes have flown into the air, or have been plunged to the centres of the earth, they must be sought for in the North and West and in the British Isles." For some months I studied the subject carefully from a Scriptural standpoint, and I found that the predictions of the Bible are much more easily interpreted on the supposition that the Identity theory is true than on any other supposition. The great difficulty to me was, how the theory could be established from philology, ethnology, and history; and this difficulty still prevented me becoming a convert to the Anglo-Israel belief.
A few months later I had the honour of making t he acquaintance of Mrs. Geils, of Ardmore, who is a firm believer in the Identity and ful1 of zeal in promoting her views. She supplied me with a large number of books on the subject. I read also pamphlets written in refutation of the theory, and I found that both parties run into extremes and equally fall into grievous mistakes! However, one who wishes to find truth for its own sake will notice in reading the books written in defense of Anglo-Israelism that each book throws more or less light on the subject.
I shall now relate how my difficulties about the various British peoples were removed: I resolved to trace carefully the various races of Britain from their original habitations.
We have (1) the Keltic Britons; (2) the Romans; (3) the Picts and Scots; (4) the Angles; (5) the Saxons; (6) the Frisians; (7) the Danes; (8) the Normans. Now I put aside the Romans, who never mingled with the Britons. They encamped in the island, and were the rulers over the country, but left it, after 400 years of occupation, in A.D. 418 in the same manner as they had entered it, leaving behind them only traces of military camps and forts, but no colonies.
I then began to trace the Keltic Britons, and found them to be the first Israelitish emigrants, who emigrated from Palestine to Spain (then called Tarshish) perhaps as early as 1285 BC; for we know from Judges 5: 17, that Dan had ships at that time, and it is most probable some of the Danites emigrated to another land, when Israel was under the yoke of Jabin, king of Canaan, of the king of Moab, the king of Mesopotamia, and of the Philistines. There can be no doubt that there were Hebrew colonists in Spain during Solomons reign; for we read in 1 Kings 10:22, that Solomon had at sea a navy of Tarshish, bringing gold and silver, ivory and apes, and peacocks. I think it is quite reasonable to suppose that Solomon must have had in that country a colony of Hebrew merchants and labourers. In confirmation of the fact, that there were Hebrew colonists in Spain in the reign of Solomon, Bishop Titcombe tells of an extract he took from a learned Latin commentary on Ezekiel, by Father Vilalpandus, where, after quoting from Philo, Josephus, Seneca, and Cicero on the subject of Hebrew colonization in Spain, he mentions the remarkable fact that a stone had been found at Saguntum, having an inscription in Hebrew characters sculptured upon it, running thus: "This is the tomb of Adoniram, the servant of King Solomon, who came to collect tribute and died here." (See 1 Kings 4: 6.) From the voyage of Jonah, as we read in Jonah 1:3, we learn that the ships of commerce traded regularly between Tarshish and the coast of Palestine, for he found at Joppa a vessel ready for the voyage at the very moment he wished to set sail. And why should Jonah flee to Tarshish if no Hebrew colonists were there? It cannot but be supposed, therefore, that at the impending invasion from Assyria tribes like those of Dan and Asher, which were used to navigation, availed themselves of the same means of escape as Jonah.
Tacitus says that the Silures, or inhabitants of Wales in his time, resembled the people of Spain, from which he concluded that they were of Spanish origin (Vit. Agr. 11). I was still more confirmed by the assertion of Strabo, who says of the Aquitani, on the shores opposite to Britain, that they resembled the Iberi of Spain, more than they did the other Gauls, in language and appearance (lib. 4 1, 2). There is a great similarity between the words Iberi and Hebrew, and a still greater between Iberi and the original [Hebrew] form [of] Ibri, which is without the aspirate. There is a frequent interchange of e and i in the spelling of ancient names, and the prefixing of the aspirate h is quite common: hence we have Heber for Eber, Hibernian for Ibernian. After collecting all the information I could get on the subject, I came to the conclusion that some of the Israelites escaped about BC 720 from the coasts of Palestine to Spain, where a Hebrew colony already existed, and that the Spanish Kelts who were Israelites, migrated to Cornwall and Ireland even before the kingdom of Israel was carried away captive by Shalmaneser.
Having found who the Keltic Britons were, I proceeded with my enquiry as to who the Welsh Kymry were, and read what Thomas Stephans, in his work on "The Literature of the Kymry," says: They are the last remnant (he says) of the Kimmerioi, of Homer, and the Kymry (Cimbri) of Germany. From the Chersonesus (Jutland) a portion of them landed on the shores of Northumberland, gave their name to the county of Cumberland, and in process of time followed the shore to their present resting-place, where they still call themselves Kymry and give their country a similar name. Their history, clear, concise, and authentic, ascends to a high antiquity. Their language was embodied in verse long before the languages now spoken rose into notice: and their literature, cultivated and abundant, lays claim to being the most ancient in modern Europe. Professor Rawlinson, following Sharon Turner, admits that "the identity of the Cymri of Wales with the Cimbri of the Romans seems worthy of being accepted as a historical fact, upon the grounds stated by Niebuhr and Arnold."
Next I sought to discover the origin of the Kymry of Wales, and from which family of the human race they sprang. But having no longer the classic historians of Greece and Rome to guide me, I was obliged to consult the books which existed before the use of the papyrus was general, and when the sun-dried brick was the common table and the Imperial Blue-Book. Such books have been recovered in the mounds of Assyrian ruins, and among other inscriptions is the "Nimroud Obelisk," now in the British Museum. It records the annals of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, whose rule was between 858 and 823 BC, and one of the items runs thus: V
"The tribute of Jehu, the son of Omri (Jahua Abil-Khumree), silver, gold, bowls, vessels of gold, &c., with sceptres for the kings hand, all these have I received."
Another set of inscriptions, which tells the story of Tiglath-Pilesers reign, gives us the following, unfortunately broken, record: V "The land of Samaria (Beth Khumree) . . . the population . . . the goods of its people . . . I sent to Assyria. As they had slain Pekah, their king, I appointed Hosea over the kingdom."
The palace walls of Sargon, a successor of Tiglath-Pileser, display these words: V " By the aid of the sun I captured the city of Samaria (Khumree), and carried into captivity 27,280 of its inhabitants."
I believe that you will agree with me that, from what has already been said, it can be satisfactorily concluded that the kingdom of Israel, of Scripture, and the Beth Khumree of the Assyrian inscriptions, are identical. History presents these people as having been carried captive by the Assyrians at various periods between the year 740 and 721 BC; and they were settled in the "cities of the Medes," near the shores of the Caspian Sea, east of the river Araxes, where, in a Russian fortress termed "Gumri," their name is to be found on the banks of the Araxes till the present day.
The meaning of the name Gimiri or Khumree is, according to Sir Henry Rawlinson, "The Tribes," which was the most common appellation of the people of Israel.
Being convinced that Welsh Kymry, as well as the Keltic Britons, belonged to the Hebrew race, I began to consider the case of the next nation that came to Britain, and found that the Jutes from Jutland arrived about AD 449, and 98 years afterwards, in AD 547 came the Angles. This brought me to the great Anglo-Saxon race. I then turned to Sharon Turners celebrated work, on the "History of the Anglo-Saxons," and I found him saying in book 2, chapter 1: "The Saxons were a Gothic or Scythian tribe; and of the various Scythian nations which have been recorded, the Sakai, or Sacae, are the people from whom the descent of the Saxons may be inferred with the least violation of probability. Sakaisuna, or the sons of the Sakai, abbreviated into Saksun, which is the same sound as Saxon, seems a reasonable etymology of the word Saxon. The Sakai, who in Latin are called Sacae, were an important branch of the Scythian race. They were so celebrated, that the Persians called all the Scythians by the name of Sace; and Pliny, who mentions this, ranks them as among the most distinguished people of Scythia. Strabo places them eastward of the Caspian, and states them to have made many incursions on the Kimmerians and Treres, both far and near. They seized Bactriana, and the most fertile part of Armenia, which from them derived the name Sakasina; they defeated Cyrus; and they reached the Cappadoces on the Euxine. This important fact of a part of Armenia having been named Sakasina is mentioned by Strabo in another place; and seems to give a geographical locality to our primeval ancestors, and to account for the Persian words that occur in the Saxon language, as they must have come into Armenia from the Northern regions of Persia.
"That some of the divisions of this people were really called Sakasuna, is obvious from Pliny; for he says, that the Sakai, who settled in Armenia, were named Sacassani, which is but Saka-suna, spelt by a person unacquainted with the meaning of the combined words. And the name Sacasena, which they gave to the part of Armenia they occupied, is nearly the same sound as Saxonia. It is also important to remark, that Ptolemy mentions a Sythian people, sprung from the Sakai, who reached Armenia, who were called Sacassani; they may have traversed Europe with the same appellation; which being pronounced by the Romans from them, and then reduced to writing from their pronunciation, may have been spelt with the x instead of the ks, and thus Saxones would not be a greater variation from Sacassani, or Saksuna, than we find between French, Francois, Franci, and their Greek name, or between Spain, Espagne, and Hispania."
In tracing the earliest mention we have of the word "Saxon," I found it in its first shape, Sakae, in the inscriptions on the Behistun Rock, which Sir H. Rawlinson concludes must belong to the date 516 BC. This writing is 300 feet above the level of the plain, in the face of a precipitous rock, which rises perpendicular to a height of 1700 feet. Rawlinson first deciphered the letters by the aid of a telescope. The portion specially referred to here is a sculpture representing Darius Hystaspes trampling on the body of one captive, while eight others are standing before him, tied together by their necks; each one having his name and his crime recorded on a tablet over his head. The last figure of the eight is "represented with a high-peaked cap, exactly like that worn by the ancient Israelites and a cast of countenance totally unlike the rest," and is described as follows: "This is Esku-ka, the chief of the Sakae."
It was not the first time that the Hebrews were called by another name. They were called "Children of Abraham," then "sons of Jacob" and "children of Israel," then "Beth Omri," or Khumree, and in Amos 7:16, and Psalm 105:9, they are called [in Hebrew] "the house of Isaac".
The [Hebrew] name has been undergoing a change in writing and pronounciation. even in the Bible, for in Amos 7:16, and Psalms 105:9, we see that instead of (yits-chak) we read (yis-chak), the [Hebrew] letter (Tsude) being changed into a (sin). It is very common in the east to drop the letter I and so we have Schaek for Ischaek, and in dropping the guttural (ch), we have Sak or Saac; the letter k or c is often changed to x, and thus we have Saax, and with the termination ons, which means son, we have Saaexons. Seeing so good historical, philological, etymological, and ethnological authority for connecting Israel, after the great captivity and complete deportation, with a people whom we can trace throughout the later historical records, I do not hesitate to confess that I firmly believe that the Anglo-Saxons are of the Lost Tribes of the House of Israel V the House of Isaac, the children of Abraham, the friend of God, to whom God has given an unconditional promise that his seed shall be as the dust of the earth, the stars of heaven, the sands on the sea shore, and that a nation and a company of nations shall descend from him.
After the Saxons came the Danes to Britain in AD 787, and the Normans in AD 1066. In enquiring as to the origin of those people, who helped to make up the present British nation, I found that Sharon Turner, who supports his opinions by quotations from Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny, and Josephus, says: "The Anglo-Saxons, Lowland Scotch, Danes and Normans, all sprang from the same stock."
Thierry, in his History of the Norman Conquest, Book 2, says: V "Such was the first appearance in England of the Northern pirates, called Danes or Normans, according as they came from the island in the Baltic Sea, or from the coast of Norway. They descended from the same primitive race as the Anglo-Saxons."
On these and many other grounds, which I do not now quote, because it is impossible to do so in the limits of a lecture, I came to the conclusion that the Keltic ancient Britons, the Picts and Scots, the Scythian Angles, the Gothic Saxons, the Frisians, the Danes and the Normans have in truth been brethren, the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. But in spite of all that I had discovered, there remained a dark and insoluble riddle, how they should so nicely and trimly have been united into one people in Britain in order to represent the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. This riddle cannot be solved by the aid of ordinary analogies or of common ethnic migration. But when I recollected that I was considering the history of Gods chosen people, who were subjects of divine prophecy, I felt sure that He who guides the course of Providence would be fully able to work out His own designs, and bring these masses of Israelites, who were scattered, into such lines of forward movement as would place them just where He meant them to be collected together. Therefore I resolved to study again the Bible carefully to see what the Scripture indicates concerning the Ten-Tribed kingdom of Israel.
I began the investigation of the prophecies with Hosea, who had a special mission to the Ten Tribes of Israel. In the first chapter the prophet represents the Ten Tribes under the figure of the children Jezreel, Lo-Ruhama, and Lo-Ammi, being symbolical of their approaching condition of exile, when they were to be judged, cast off, and made uncovenanted as Gentiles. Hosea says, further, in chapter 2:8, that God will hedge up the way of the Ten Tribes with thorns, and make a wall, so that they shall not find their path. Again, in chapter 8:8-9, he says: "Israel is swallowed up; now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel wherein is no pleasure"V that is, they shall be hidden from view, or put out of sight. "For they are gone up to Assyria, a wild ass alone by himself." In the book of Hosea, from beginning to end, we see that Ephraim-Israel were to be lost to themselves and to other nations.
From Ezekiel 20:32-39 it would seem that the Israelitish captives in Assyria were anxious to obliterate all mark of their origin, but God vows to prevent their utter corruption, and assimilation with the heathen by whom they are surrounded, and addresses them in the following words: "And that which cometh into your mind shall not be at all: that ye say, We will be as the heathen, as the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone. As I live, saith the Lord God, surely with a mighty hand and a stretched-out arm, and with fury poured out, will I rule over you; and I will bring you out from the people, and gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand and with a stretched-out arm, and with fury poured out; and I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there I will plead with you face to face; like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord God, and I will cause you to pass under the rod. And I will bring you into the bond of the covenant."
God has cast Ephraim-Israel away, but their case was still entirely in His hand. Although divorced, and sent away from the land which He calls His own, they were not cast out of His care or beyond His control, and in spite of the enormity of their wickedness, which caused Him to cast them out of His land, He had determined to keep a watchful care over them; for "God is not a man that He should lie," or not fulfill the unconditional special blessings He promised to Abraham, that his descendants should become great, mighty and prosperous.
After God had scattered Israel in many countries of Asia and Europe, the time came that the promise of God in Hosea 2:14 was to be fulfilled: "Therefore I will allure her and bring her into the wilderness (i.e., the then thinly inhabited Britain, which was like a wilderness), and (I will) speak comfortably to her." And again: "Hear the word of the Lord, 0 ye nations, declare it in the isles (of Britain) afar off (from Palestine), and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him and keep him" (Jeremiah 31:10).
When the main body of Israel was by the providence of God gathered to the British Isles, and after a time of fighting among themselves, they returned unto the Lord, for the time had then come that the prophecy of Hosea 1:10 should be fulfilled, which says: "And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not My people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God." Through Christ the British-Israel are the children of the living God, children of Abraham according to the spirit as well as according to the flesh, and therefore from that time they began to enjoy all the earthly blessings promised to Abraham and to his seed for ever, which are only a shadow of the heavenly blessings.
Since that time the birthright promises began to be realized, that the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel were to be more than ever as "the dust of the earth" (Gen. 13:16), and as "the stars of heaven" (Gen. 15:5) and to become "a company of nations" (Gen. 35:11).
Israel has been blessed in Britain, so that the Isles have become too strait for his children, and he required new territory. This was foretold in Isaiah 49:19, 21, and another Scripture had to be fulfilled that declares of Israel, "Thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left, and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited " (Isaiah 54:3).
Among the many marks which the British people have to show as proof that they are the lost Israelites, is the possession of the "Gates" or strongholds of their "enemies," according to the promise of God (see Gen. 22:17). When we take the atlas, we see that Britain possesses, as Philo-Israel describes it, the grand points all over the world, which give her power and influence in all the countries. These are:
Gibraltar, in Spain, a true Gate of the Mediterranean.
Malta, which was formerly the property of the French, and is a sort of door or Gate to the Mediterranean Sea Eastwards.
A large share of the Suez Canal, a Gate of the Red Sea and of Egypt.
The Island of Perim, a place which is at the South of the Red Sea, and whoever has that can shut up the road into that sea, or open up the passage towards Egypt from India as he likes.
Aden, a port in Arabia, which is a Gate of entry into that country.
The island of Socotra, close to Aden, which is another Gate to guard the entry into the Red Sea, the road to the land of Israel from the East and from India.
The seaport town of Bombay, and that Gate gave Britain all Western India.
Madras, and the possession of it has enabled Britain to take all South India, and hold Ceylon besides.
The great Gate Calcutta, in North India, which is the chief city of all those parts.
There is Burma, too, a country of which we have taken a great portion, because we seized the town of Rangoon some years ago; and Rangoon is a Gate of the Burmese Empire.
On the other side of India, up to the far North-east you will see on the maps a town called Peshawur, which is the door of the road into Afghanistan from India, and this is a Gate also which God gave to our nation in 1849.
Then in the Straits of Malacca there are three places you will findXPenang (an island), Malacca and SingaporeXall three Gates or strongholds, giving the owners "command" of that passage; and we British have been made by God to possess them all three.
Beyond these spots there is the Island of Labuan and the town of Sarawak, in and off the large continent Island of Borneo; and these two Gates we hold.
Off the coast of China there is the strong Island of Hong Kong, which God gave us to possess, and there are many seaport towns on the East Coasts of China where He has made us very powerful, because of our Navy, and these places are, I think, going to be "Gates" for the destruction of the Chinese Empire, and the transfer of it, perhaps, to the British nation.
Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide. and Perth are Gates in Australia, which God gave to Britain.
The islands of New Zealand are great Gates.
Then there is Tasmania, which is British; and we got that by having the Gates of Australia.
Going round to Africa we have a large slice of that country to the South; and we got "possession" because of our hold on "the Gates," Cape Town and Natal.
Further North-west, there is Cape Coast CastleXa Gate which enabled us lately to conquer the Ashantee kingdom and destroy Coomassie.
St. Helena is a true British Gate, because it gives us influence at sea on the ocean road to India.
And finally, we have Gates in the Falkland Islands, at the very South of South America, besides Ushuwia, in Tierra del Fuego. We have also Gates in the West India Islands and in Georgetown, British Guiana.
It seems to me that in accordance with common sense and Scripture truth, the British are the main body of Israel indeed, for if not, why are the blessings promised by God to Abraham and his seed for ever now inherited by Britain? It is my conviction that Britain is the nation with whom God has from first to last identified Himself, in which He has been pleased to show forth the glory of His divine attributes, and that He is doing so at the present moment, and will do so until the end of time. "God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew" (Romans11:1). God has foreknown Israel and has chosen them as a nation to enjoy supremacy and preference before all nations in the world, to be a holy nation unto God, as it is written: "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deuteronomy 7:6). No one can deny that Britain, as a nation, is holier than any nation in the world. I do not say a perfectly holy nation, but holier in every respect than other nations, a more special people unto God than any other people on earth, with the exception of the Jews, who are the brethren of the British people, with whom Gods dealings are as marvelous as His dealings with the British. The reason of it we have clearly given to us in Gods Holy Word, in Deuteronomy 7:8, in order to keep His vow to the fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.
™ Version 4.2
