Two Biblical Cases against British-Israelism
By Neodromos
While there is extensive criticism of British-Israelism (BI) from sources external to the Bible such as archaeology, theology, history, and genetics, there are also arguments against BI that are internal to the scripture. The external arguments based on academic disciplines may be regarded by supporters of BI as humanistic rather than spiritual, scientific rather than theological, imaginative rather than inspired, or natural rather than divine. So there is a need to identify where the Bible speaks on this topic. Two Biblical arguments are sketched out in this essay to augment that large corpus of academic evidence that shows that BI is without a credible foundation.
Paul the Benjamite
In Acts 21:38, a Roman military officer, probably a centurion, mistakes Paul, who is a Benjamite, for an Egyptian. In a conversation with Paul, the centurion makes the following statement and Paul responds:
“Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia…”
The centurion knows nothing of Paul's background so the misidentification is based on appearance. The picture that accompanies this essay is from the Fayum Mummy Portraits collection. The picture dates from around the time of Paul. It is worthwhile to look at these remarkably realistic portraits on the web. They depict Greeks living in Egypt, Egyptians, and people of mixed Greek and Egyptian ancestry. Consistently, they are darkly pigmented people with curly or very curly hair. The centurion is saying that Paul has the same characteristics as the man portrayed in this Mummy Portrait.
Yet Armstrongism asserts that the tribe of Benjamin settled in Norway and the modern descendants of the tribe of Benjamin are the Norwegians. Herman Hoeh wrote this in his article titled “Location of the Tribes of Israel” published in 1957:
“Benjamin constitutes Norway and Iceland. The Icelandic people are in reality a colony of Norwegians.”
Actually, thanks to genetics, we now know that the Icelanders are a mix of mostly Norse men and Irish women. Would that make them Benjamites or Danites, Hoeh might ask. We are all familiar with the fair people of Scandinavia. And there is no way that a centurion, familiar with people of different nations in Europe and the Middle East, is going to address a man who looks like a Northman and ask him if he is an Egyptian. Paul was a Benjamite and was darkly pigmented with curly or very curly hair. He could be mistaken for an Egyptian from North Africa. Paul looked that way because Benjamites looked that way. Benjamites were Middle Eastern Hebrews. Other people in this class are the Mizrahi Jews or the Bedouins who trace their ancestry to Ishmael and Joktan the son of Eber (progenitor of the Hebrews). Both Ishmael and Joktan are Hebrews and their descendants predominantly have the same genetic haplogroup. It is instructive to Google up some photos of Mizrahi Jews from Syria or Yemen and also some Bedouin Arabs. Some scholars believe that the Mizrahi Jews of Syria are most like the Jews of Palestine in the time of Jesus. The fact that you will not find a Scandinavian countenance among these people (unless they are of mixed ancestry), is evidence that BI is not in agreement with this Biblical scenario involving Paul and the centurion. The sample size is small but it is recorded in an important place, and the fact that the BI theory does not explain the empirical data means that the theory is wrong.
Note: Genetics would confirm the Biblical account from the point of view of haplogroup. Paul would have been haplogroup J mostly likely – the haplogroup of the Hebrews. The Egyptians would have been haplogroup E. Both peoples are olive-skinned with dark hair (Mediterranean type) and bear resemblance to each other. Paul could easily have been mistaken by the centurion for an Egyptian. The Scandinavians, on the other hand, would be haplogroup R1b or R1a or I. A person of haplogroup J (a Jew) ancestry and one of haplogroup R or I (a Norse) ancestry, without much admixture in either case, could not be confused. If Paul appeared to be Norse, the centurion would have asked him if he were a Northman.
The Pirating of the Kingly Line and Throne of Israel
Jeremiah purportedly transplanted the Kingly line and throne of Israel to the British Isles. But the Bible has much to say about such an undertaking. The following laws were given in Deuteronomy concerning the role of a King:
“And it shall be, when he (the King) sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them …” (KJV, Deut 17:19)
This statement points to some constraints on Biblical Kingship as to geography, liturgy, and legislation. We also the following statement from Deuteronomy 28, the cursings chapter:
”The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.” (Deut 28)
This was given to the people of Israel as one of the prominent curses that might be visited on them for sin. We may summarize these scriptures as follows:
1) The throne of the King is located in the ancient nation of Israel. He will govern from this location. He is connected to the land or territory of Israel - the Promised Land – a land important to God.
2) He is to know and do the laws found in the book held by the priests and Levites. This would be the Torah containing laws, statutes, ceremonies, and sacrifices. He has a clear connection to the law and its implementation through the priests and Levites. He is tied to Israel’s liturgical infrastructure.
3) This connection to the law and priestly functions necessarily includes the King’s explicit connection to the Temple where the liturgical laws are to be carried out.
4) If Israel sins, one of the great curses that will befall the nation is the removal of the King and the people from the land to which they are connected. This necessarily entails the loss of the Temple and its priestly infrastructure.
Against this Biblical backdrop, we have the odd and disconsonant theory in BI that Jeremiah saved the Kingly line and throne by transplanting both to the British Isles in a rescue operation. These Torahic laws assert that because of sin the Kingly line and throne will be lost not transplanted to flourish elsewhere away from land, law, and Temple. When Christ returns, his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4) in the Biblically recognized land of the throne and Temple. He will not drop into Edinburgh Castle to be seated on the alien Stone of Scone, which was probably quarried around Perthshire, among Gentile foreigners. The BI theory amounts to nothing less than the capture and Gentilization of the Judaic heritage concerning the Kingship and the throne of Israel.
Conclusion
Paul was not a Scandinavian. And the BI theory concerning the transplantation of the Kingly line and throne to the British Isles is a blatant and discordant departure from otherwise harmonious policy statements found in the cited Old Covenant laws and the prophecy in Zechariah 14. There are no doubt other places in the Bible where British-Israelism cannot be rationally accommodated. I have presented only two. And these two cases internal to the Bible should be added to the conclusive findings from external sources such as archaeology, theology, history, and genetics that BI is a theory in search of credible evidence.
Do you have maps and charts ?
ReplyDeleteNeoDromos
ReplyDeleteThank you for the post. I cannot help but wonder why the Armstrong movement has not come out openly, and vigorously refuted the material on site here exposing BI as the facade that it is.
Perhaps the realisation is deep down they know they have no support argument for this theory which will stand under the light of critical inquiry. To dump Bi would in effect finish them as a going concern and expose their many other flaws under the spotlight.
The prophet Jeremiah clearly states the kingly line of Judah is finished.
To claim the daughters of the king of Judah fled to Egypt with Jeremiah and the other Jewish survivors of the Babylonians and then this ‘royal line’ miraculously reappeared in British is absolutely bizarre.
Historical, archeological, linguistic and now DNA evidence is compellingly against this most erroneous doctrine.
As are the scriptures themselves.
"To dump Bi would in effect finish them as a going concern"
ReplyDeleteGTA wanted to dump it in the 1970s, but after he started his own cult he soon realized how essential it was for attracting members from parent church, so he had to reluctantly continue proclaiming the bullshit. Same with today's ACOGs, they know BI is a proven moneymaking & sheepstealing tool.
What about the original case: Asenath
ReplyDeleteGenesis 46:20 And to Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath, the daughter of Poti-Pherah priest of On, bore to him.
Nicely explained Neodromos. The 19th Century dies hard in the world of WCG and the splinters.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6:03
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall that Hoeh somewhere goes through quite an explanation about how the Priests of On were actually Hebrews. They were Midianites maybe - putatively descendants of Abraham. I will try to find the statement.
Another Armstrongist "historian", whose name now escapes me though he spent some time on the Big Sandy campus, made a bogus claim that Rahab, in Jesus' genealogy, was not a Canaanite. But of course Armstrongism held the invalid viewpoint that Canaanites were Blacks.
One should realize that one of the important concerns of such "historians" is to defend the racial purity of "Israel." That is why there is all the hubbub about Noah and HWA being racially pure. (I am surprised that Rod Meredith revealed he was part Cherokee.) This concern seems to fit nicely in with White Nationalism.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I would guess that because Jacob and Joseph were believed to have been in Egypt during the Hyskos period, writers would claim that the priests of On/Heliopolis may have been Hyskos too. I do not think there is any evidence for that, though. Plus, the Bible account is clearly written from a later standpoint - it calls the kings of Egypt of that period "Pharoah" when that title wasn't in use yet, and it has the Egyptians not eating with the Hebrews - which would be doubly unusual if the Hyskos were in power. (Also has coins in the story, which weren't in use yet.)
DeleteHWA thought "overturn" in Eze 21:27 meant "transfer" - UB in Prophecy, p. 106, c1967. It doesn't. It means throw down, ruin. Ps 89:44 - You have put an end to his splendor and cast his throne to the ground.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that prior to the rise of BI, a lot of writers identified the Europeans as Japheth's spawn, not Shem's! But that arrangement wouldn't work for BI enthusiasts, who had to reassign the Japheth descandants to Asia to make things work.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6:03
ReplyDeleteHoeh makes a case that she was the daughter of a Priest of On and identifies On possibly as the true God. But I could not find any reference to the racial background of Asenath. Either I was mistaken about that or heard it in a sermon given by someone else. In short, there is no documentation for this.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
BRITISH ISRAEL-ISM IS TRUE DEPARTMENT! ...
ReplyDeleteIn the United States we have the following cities from Israel...
Salem , WV
Zion, UT
Bethlehem , NY
Jerusalem , OH
Galilee, RI
Mt. Carmel, PA
... and many more.
By WCG standards , then that should be PROOF enough! (sarcasm alert)
Another one of these focus at the trees, but ignore the forest, articles. Just one example. Australis is in the middle of Asia. Indonesia has over 200 million people crowded on a group of islands, with terrible weather. By contrast, the large continent of Australia has only 25 million people, with favorable weather on its east and west coast. Why over thousands of years didn't Asians settle there? The country being an Anglo-Saxon possession stands out like a sore thumb. Plus it was protected by God from the Japanese in the battle of Midway during WW2. The country can only be part of God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 35:11.
ReplyDeleteNeo,
ReplyDeleteGood presentation! Of course, Armstrongites ignore the Scriptural elephant in the room with regard to this teaching. Like the Israelites of old, they completely misunderstand WHY God made the Israelites his chosen people. It wasn't because they were racially superior or somehow more deserving than other folks! They were to serve as God's introduction to the rest of humanity. That Scriptural elephant which I referred to is Jesus Christ. For most Christians, both the Old and New Testaments make clear that the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David all find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ - PERIOD! Through him, both Jews and Gentiles find forgiveness, reconciliation, salvation and are made heirs of the promises.
Anon 9:47:00 AM PDT
ReplyDeleteQuite possibly one of the weakest arguments in support of BI ever posted here.
On the contrary, the Indonesian Island chain is bested with amazing weather as witnessed by the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit their stores each year. Hmmm….the Australian continent in the Middle of Asia?
That Asians did not settle in Australia is no proof that this land was set aside for the Anglo Saxons, what a sloppy and intellectually weak comment. That it was protected by God from Japanese invasion in WW11, well tell that to the residents of Darwin and Katherine in the Northern Territory.
Your post in no way can be attributed as a serious defence of this erroneous theory.
Seriously, proponents of BI need to come up with better arguments that this absurd nonsense to give legitimacy for BI.
1.10 PM
DeleteThe Indonesian islands had 156 floods in January 2022, down from 175 the previous month. Personally, I would not call that 'amazing weather.'
Anonymous 10:43:00
DeleteMeanwhile in Australia, Queensland has had bad flooding *again*, and northern New South Wales has been flooded this time too. If floods are proof of non-Israelite provenance, then I guess that shows two of Australia's states are non-Israelite.
RSK wrote, "It is interesting that prior to the rise of BI, a lot of writers identified the Europeans as Japheth's spawn"
ReplyDeleteOutside of the BI domain, Japheth is seen as the progenitor of the Europeans. There may be some politics behind this. The Jews are descended from Shem and the Blacks are descended from Ham (along with all other people of color). Maybe European Bible students did not want Europeans to co-reside on the family tree with Semites and Hamites so Japheth was the alternative. That may be a little cynical on my part.
The fact is, if we regard the geneaology in Genesis 10 as more than allegory, Shem, Ham and Japheth were all wearing the same genetic tag. So we should all today be wearing that same genetic tag today because it is inherited through the masculine line. There is only one masculine line - that of Noah. But we are not all the same with regard to that tag. I believe the descendants of Adam were a homogenous group of Middle Eastern people known in Hebrew as Ha'adam. And the race of Ha'adam did not include most of the people on the planet who had other genetic tags and those tags are yet in existence to this day.
When the KJV translators created the text in Gensis 6:7 where God said he was going to destroy all of humanity, what it really says is that God was going to wipe out Ha'adam - the race of men descended from Adam - and the animals from their land. He does not even say he is going to wipe out all of Ha'adam. And the "every living thing" bit is not in the Hebrew. See the ESV rendering of this verse.
I could go on but that's enough.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
RSK wrote, "It is interesting that prior to the rise of BI, a lot of writers identified the Europeans as Japheth's spawn"
ReplyDeleteOutside of the BI domain, Japheth is seen as the progenitor of the Europeans. There may be some politics behind this. The Jews are descended from Shem and the Blacks are descended from Ham (along with all other people of color). Maybe European Bible students did not want Europeans to co-reside on the family tree with Semites and Hamites so Japheth was the alternative. That may be a little cynical on my part.
The fact is, if we regard the geneaology in Genesis 10 as more than allegory, Shem, Ham and Japheth were all wearing the same genetic tag. So we should all today be wearing that same genetic tag today because it is inherited through the masculine line. There is only one masculine line - that of Noah. But we are not all the same with regard to that tag. I believe the descendants of Adam were a homogenous group of Middle Eastern people known in Hebrew as Ha'adam. And the race of Ha'adam did not include most of the people on the planet who had other genetic tags and those tags are yet in existence to this day.
When the KJV translators created the text in Gensis 6:7 where God said he was going to destroy all of humanity, what it really says is that God was going to wipe out Ha'adam - the race of men descended from Adam - and the animals from their land. He does not even say he is going to wipe out all of Ha'adam. And the "every living thing" bit is not in the Hebrew. See the ESV rendering of this verse.
I could go on but that's enough.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous 9:47
ReplyDeleteYour logic looks like this:
Premise 1. Australia was intended as a land for the British people.
Premise 2. Australia was protected from the Japanese during WW2
Conclusion: Therefore, the country can only be part of God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 35:11.
The problem is that Premises 1 and 2 may be true without leading to the conclusion that you have drawn. This is the kind of incomplete and faulty logic that you frequently find among advocates of BI. It good "ear resonance" but on closer examination, it has no real logical substance.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I don't consider your arguments conclusive, it's just one contribution.
ReplyDeleteHere are a bunch of points I've learned either from church or after it:
Races like Chinese and African blacks existed separately from the Adamic creation.
Ham is white northern Africans and some middle eastern who are not Arabs, I'd like to know which. I guess those like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.
Japheth in Europe includes Iberians, southern Italians, Ukrainians, Russians. I have no problem wih that.
The ancient Egyptians were of Ham. After Moses, God said the Egyptians would never again rule Egypt. So since then it has been inhabited by Arabs. Those Egyptians migrated east apparently known as Hyksos. They settled in southern Babylon and after a while took control. Then were known as Chaldeans and made Babylon an empire. Later they migrated to northern Italy and Romania and continued the Roman resurrections.
It's fascinating that Joseph's sons were half Egyptian. We have such a departure from Jacob right there. They are the most prominent leaders.
What exactly is "Hebrew"?
Neodromos uses "haplogroup" the way ACOGs use "Mr. Armstrong said." His arguments are internally consistent but rely on contingent premises that an ACOG member need not accept. Neodromos should not expect to convince any ACOG members with his current mode of presentation; all he is doing is boasting that he has knowledge the poor ignorant Armstrongites reject... which is exactly how the Armstrongites view themselves in comparison to people like Neodromos.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 5:01
ReplyDeleteIf you try to fit nations into the Genesis 10 so-called "Table of Nations" you will encounter one puzzle after another. The KJV translators dubbed it "The Table of Nations." In Hebrew it is called the "clans of the sons of Noah" in the text of chapter 10. These people are all descendants of Adam and are referred to as Ha'adam. They are all y-chromosome haplogroup J. They migrated in many directions and gave their name to many geographic areas. Those areas, from the perspective of the Biblical writers, are called after the names of the Ha'adam who settled there. For instance, Mizraim migrated to Egypt and settled there so the Biblical writers call Egypt Mizraim. But when the Ha'adam arrived there, Egypt was already populated with y-chromosome haplogroup E people. A Ha'adam named Tarshish migrated to the southern Iberian Peninisula on the coast. But the Iberian peninsula was already populated with y-chromosome haplogroup R1b people. They are not the descendants of Tarshish.
Most races of people in this world are not Ha'adam biologically although they have followed in Adam's footsteps spiritually - allegorially they are his sons and daughters. They are Ha'adam in mind and attitude. This has ramifications for the BI theory. The British are not only not descended from the Israel, the are not descended from Noah. They are not Ha'adam. I am a little part Ha'adam but I am mostly non-Adamic. The Iberians, southern Italians, Ukrainians, Russians are not descended from Japheth. In fact they are not even descended from Adam. Their genetic lines have been here for scores of thousands of years near the locations where they now live.
What I have asserted is theory. But it fits the known data, both Biblical and scientific, way better than the generally accepted idea that all of mankind came from Adam based on a tradition passed down to the KJV translators. Way, way better. It is a position that can be defended. You don't have to throw your hands up and say that you are just going to have "faith." All translators write their politics into their translations. It is up to us to parse it out.
********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Since Genesis 3:20 calls Eve "the mother of all living", I'd say the idea of all mankind coming from Adam (and Eve) is not just a tradition of KJV translators.
DeleteHardcore Armstrongites will admit to being wrong about British Israelism at about the same time as the MAGA crowd finally admits that the election being stolen is the big lie!
ReplyDeleteAnon 5:01:00 PM PDT
ReplyDelete‘Those Egyptians migrated east apparently known as Hyksos’.
The ethnic origins of the Hyksos are not known, but what we do know is they spoke and wrote a Semitic language, but there is no indication they were Hebrews.
They were driven from Egypt around 1570-1540 by Ahmose 1 whose dynasty reigned until 1070 bc.
The Hyksos arrived and easily adopted Egyptian customs and worship etc etc. While they established the 15th dynasty ruling over Egypt they were expelled and most traces of them erased except for a few inscriptions found at Avaris, SakirHar and Khamudi. The Stella of Kamose describes the Hyksos being driven out. The Hyksos are believed to have introduced the chariot to Egypt and also new methods of irrigation and metalworking. As well as looms for weaving and the short sword and the composite bow for archery.
The Hyksos fled Egypt to Palestine then to Syria where their trail vanishes into history.
Their contribution to Egypt was immense and made Egypt a power to be feared.
NeoDromos:
ReplyDeleteHerodotus wrote at the time of Christ about the people on the north shore of the Black Sea, that "they say they are the Medes". They had the dress and traditions of the Medes. No need to argue "theoretically". There were the Medes constantly mentioned around Palestine too. Further, in the land of Media in Mesopotamia were placed the captive 10 tribes of Israel where they were named the Parthians.
Meschech and Tubal were chased out of Mesopotamia and almost wiped out for constantly being a problem for their neighbours. You know where they had to flee. And still at it. God wrote "I am against you Meschech and Tubal, I will rain fire and brimstone on you".
Dr. Hoeh was not clear about the Greeks, and I accept your story.
So we are saying that Adam's descendants are the Caucausians. This includes Gomer in SE Asia. It seems some of Japheth ended up in the Philippines etc.
The Celts are said to have Hebrew blood.
Does Y-chromosome mean the 70-year lifespan? 8 chromosomes.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:43:00 PM PDT
Thanks for the update, but still no cigar. The Australians are still not Hebrews no matter how one cuts it.
Nah, the Kiwi's must be the hebrews- here is the armstrongism proof- because they speak "hey-bro"...
DeleteNeo writes:
ReplyDelete“The centurion knows nothing of Paul's background so the misidentification is based on appearance”.
This is not necessarily a correct assumption.
Ac 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Ac 2:10b in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene...
I would SUGGEST that it is more likely that the ‘Egyptian’ was an ethnic Jew.
Ac 21:31 And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.
Ac 21:38 Art not thou [ara] that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?
“The tribune, trying hard to grasp the cause of the trouble, had jumped to a conclusion... In saying that the Egyptian led them into the wilderness, the tribune may be grouping him with other imposters who at this time did lead dupes out to the wilderness of Judea... Now thought the tribune, the imposter had reappeared and the people were venting their rage on him” (F.F. Bruce, the Book of the Acts, Revised, NICNT, p.412)
“The commander was startled to hear his charge speaking fluent Greek and surmised that perhaps the prisoner was the Egyptian Jew (note the inferential particle ara in the (commander’s question) who three years earlier had appeared in Jerusalem claiming to be a prophet and had led a large band of followers into the wilderness and then to the Mount of Olives in preparation for the messianic overthrow of Jerusalem (cf. Jos. War II, 261-63 [xiii.1]; Antiq. XX, 169-72 [vii.1]. Most people considered him a charlatan. Felix and his soldiers drove him off” (Richard N. Longnecker, Acts, EBC, Vol.9, pp.523-24).
It is suggested that it is more likely that an ethnic Jew would have more success in galvanising/duping “four thousand men” than an ethnic Egyptian.
Using a modern hypothetical: If a German-American goes to the holy land and claims to be a “prophet of God,” would he be accepted by a good number of Jews?
Ac 21:37 the chief captain [chiliarchos] ... Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?
Ac 21:38a Art not thou that Egyptian
“The rhetorical question the officer poses demands a positive answer. He knows that the native tongue of an Egyptian Jew would be Greek...” (Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts, NTC, p.774).
“The tribune is surprised that Paul addresses him in Greek, not because it is rare for a Jew to speak Greek; bilingualism was common in Paul’s Palestine. He seems surprised that Paul speaks with a particular inflection of Greek, different from those who come to Palestine from North Africa (see 2:7-8). That is, the tribune knows now by his Greek dialect that Paul is not from Egypt and there cannot be “the Egyptian who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand assassins out into the wilderness” (v.38). His use of ... ouk ara, “then you are not...” to introduce a rhetorical question implies that Lysias first thought Paul is this wanted assassin...” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.298).
“According to Acts 1:11, the first Christians were in expectation that their Messiah would form a new kingdom. The Romans knew that they must be ever-vigilant against Jewish national and messianic hopes. The tribune seems to be put at ease in learning that Paul is not the Egyptian Jew who tried to overthrow the Roman yoke” (William H. Willimon, Acts, Int, p.165).
Since Jesus is a pagan myth that began in Egypt 4,500 years ago, what he looked like seems to be irrelevant. He did not exist. But I suppose he was originally perceived to look like an Egyptian of that period. What we do know is that at least some of the mummies had red hair and blue eyes (as I understand it, the hair was preserved, the blue eyes were painted on their coffins).
ReplyDeleteMax 11:18 wrote, "No need to argue "theoretically".
ReplyDeleteEverything you have written in your comment is theoretical. You are relying on sources that have been cited by various Armstrongist writers. These are high-risk sources that are subject to creative interpretation and have only theoretical value. So, Hoeh believes the Parthians were Israelites. Historians believe they were a branch of the Iranians. For Hoeh to overturn traditional historical development on the identity of these people would require that he have a time machine. All he had was an ardent desire to see British-Israelism in the historical resources he read.
But geneticists do have a time machine. It is the accumulated record found in human genomes. For instance, according to British-Israelism, there should have been a dense population of Northwest Europeans in ancient Palestine - especially in the area of the northern ten tribes. This presence should be found in the excavated burials that come from this area. This has never been found. There is no evidence of a dense population of Northwest Europeans living in Palestine prior to circa 700 BCE. This is because . . . wait for it . . . the Northwest Europeans are not Israelites.
You seem to have an interest in history and anthropology. You could make constructive use of this interest. I would suggest that you discard all that British-Israelism malarkey and read something real - for instance something by David Reich, a Harvard Medical School geneticist. He also has a good lecture on the migration of peoples into Europe on Youtube. British-Israelism is to anthropology as alchemy is to chemistry. You don't want to reach the end of your life and realize that you were an alchemist when you could have been a chemist. What a waste.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NEO,
ReplyDeleteInteresting Post and have to give you credit for "letting the Bible interpret the Bible" as we were taught to do in R/WCG.
After I read your post, I went on Wikipedia for British Israelism. Herbert Armstrong is presented almost as a "bit player" on the lengthy history of this theory. We know he plagiarized Allen's book word for word in some cases. Interestingly, there were contemporaries of Armstrong during the turn of the 20th Century who also preached the theory. Even Wikipedia points out the BI was a wedge issue between Armstrong and the parent Church of God, Seventh Day.
It's been what seems like a thousand years ago since I read Armstrong's "The United States and Great Britain in Prophecy". Well, at least a lifetime anyway. One thing I remember from the booklet that has stayed with me these many years is the claim that the name "British" is a Hebrew word meaning "covenant people". Armstrong was not the only one who taught that according to the history I read on Wikipedia. In your research (because you have posted extensively on this subject matter both here on this post and on other posts) have you been able to confirm or deny this? I am asking because I went down a rabbit hole off Wikipedia and could not confirm or deny it from what I read.
Richard
Anonymous 5:24 wrote, "rely on contingent premises that an ACOG member need not accept."
ReplyDeleteI would appreciate it if you would unpack this phrase. Otherwise, it is just groundless declaration.
And also wrote, "...all he is doing is boasting that he has knowledge the poor ignorant Armstrongites reject"
The idea that Armstrongists are the "poor ignorant" was a concept pushed by the Armstrongist ministry during the time I was in the WCG. The weak of the earth. The cream of the crud. The off-scouring of society. No wonder they might be disinclined to receive ideas that require revision of traditional beliefs. On the contrary, it is my hope that someone will read the material I have written and be stimulated to look into it further and dispel whatever ignorance they might be burdened by - even if initially it makes them angry. I even welcome rational and logical counterpoint which you have not offered.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Richard 8:48
ReplyDeleteHWA never claimed that the term "british" was ever a proof of anything. He stated in the 1972 USBC in Prophecy, page 129:
"A most interesting coincidence is the Hebrew meaning of the phonetic sounds of the names of the British people."
This is such an oblique approach to this topic on wonders why HWA even brought it up. I think maybe he was implying the idea that the label was coincidental but God just might have something to do with it. But he did not go out on a limb and assert that.
A former WCG minister wrote:
"He (HWA) taught that the Anglo-Saxons (the British peoples) are direct descendants of the ten “lost” tribes of Israel...How did he come to this conclusion? Tortured etymology gives one answer. For example, he said that the Hebrew word for “covenant” (berith) became significant in English when combined with the Hebrew word for “man” (ish). Since vowels are not written in the Masoretic text of the original Hebrew text, the e in berith drops out to form the term brith. Since ancient Hebrews did not pronounce the h, berith became brit. Put that together with ish and you have “British.” Of course, there are no biblical or historical reasons to make such leaps in logic."
I don't think anyone knows where the word Brit came from. Some suggest that it is a reference to tattooing. Ancient Britons used to tattoo themselves. HWA just played a word game and after some unusual and gratuitous manipulations came up with the word "british." It doesn't mean anything.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I hope I'm understanding the Hyksos correctly. A fascinating related point is that the Rothschilds say they are descendants of the Pharaonic Egyptians. They would be the same as the northern Italians. For all the talk about Jewish control, this is enlightening about who is ultimately in control. The so-called 13 "bloodline families" may be the same group. The other opposing side to this is the Jews. They have done plenty of infiltration. Seeing the world contest as these two major sides clears up many things. Anyway the major point is Chaldean control.
ReplyDeleteAre the Turks Arabs, or maybe Togarmah of Japheth? The Khazars are Turkic.
I do not know that there was some magic replacement by Arabs at such an early but post Hyskos period.
DeleteAnonymous 4:45 wrote, "Since Genesis 3:20 calls Eve "the mother of all living", I'd say the idea of all mankind coming from Adam (and Eve) is not just a tradition of KJV translators."
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "all living" requires qualification because it is open ended. It cannot for instance refer to all mammals, too. So what is the rational way to qualify it? We look to the context of the passages. The relevant population is the Ha'adam. She was the mother of all Ha'adam. And why would we not interpret this to mean all mankind instead of all Ha'adam? Because genetics tips the scales. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited matrilineally. If Eve were the mother of all mankind, we would all have the same mtDNA given that Eve only lived about 6,000 years ago. But there are many mtDNA haplogroups. And the phylogenetic tree structure of these haplogroups does not match the genealogy structure in Genesis 10.
Note: There is a mitochondrial "Eve." She was a Black woman who lived in southern Africa. (See Wikipedia article on "Mitochondrial Eve.")
Because we know that genetics is scientifically correct (although in the case of Genesis we may be applying to allegory), this reduces your choices to this: either eve is the mother of only the Ha'adam or the Bible is false on this topic.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous 2:55 wrote, "I would SUGGEST that it is more likely that the ‘Egyptian’ was an ethnic Jew."
ReplyDeleteThe details of the Egyptian Jew referred to in Josephus and the description given by the centurion do not match. I take them to be two different people. But the data is spare and a firm conclusion is not really possible. But the Jews, Egyptians and Greeks all looked pretty much alike at that time. Dark skinned with curly or very curly hair. So I stand by my conclusion. Paul was not a Norseman.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Max wrote, "Seeing the world contest as these two major sides clears up many things"
ReplyDeleteNo, to see the world that way is to invest in brain-fogging malarkey. Many Armstrongists have done that - especially during the time when Stanley Rader was under suspicion. The Khazar hypothesis is that the people we know as Jews are not really Jews but are Gentiles pretending to be Jews. (Hence, Rader was really a Gentile.) Malarkey.
This all plays into the anti-Semitic schtick that the Jews are insidious controllers of the world. Also malarkey. It is true that the Ashkenazi are a mixed people. They have experienced a gene flow from surrounding populations in their migrations - some studies indicate that the gene flow is principally from Southern Europe. If there is any Khazarian ancestry among the Ashkenazi, it is probably in their acquired haplogroup R component. Haplogroup R is associated with the Indo-European people. We already know that the Ashkenazi are mixed with Indo-Europeans - that is why most of them look like Europeans. This is a non-event that has been given gravitas by some branches of the White Nationalist movement. The Ashkenazi, though mixed, remain essentially Jewish (See Wikipedia, "Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry").
It is a profound irony to see a few naive Armstrongists who claim to be Israel and are wholly Gentile trying to demonstrate that the Jews are not Jewish. This idea got traction in East Texas back in the last century - in Stanley Rader days. I don't know if the idea is still around. I hope not.
As for the patriarch Togarmah, legend has it that his tribe may have migrated into Anatolia. If the tribe still exists somewhere, they are Ha'adam descended from Noah and are haplogroup J. The Khazars are a mixed people and they might have an element of haplogroup J. Hard to make any solid connection. Koestler no doubt awarded the Khazars too great a role in history.
********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I hadn't known much about Hyksos. They only ruled about 100 years and were then deposed by the native Pharaoh group, and went east. When God said the Egyptians would never again rule Egypt, after Moses, I suppose I should assume that was not the Hyksos. And that the Rothschilds are connecting to those and not the Hyksos?
ReplyDeleteLater Arabs took control, but I shouldn't say about the population.
So what ethnicity the priests of On were is where we would find what Joseph's sons' ethnicity was.
So were the Chaldeans of Hyksos, or of the others?
I dont know what your source is for "God said the Egyptians would never again rule Egypt after Moses", for one. The last native ruler of Egypt was Nectanebo II, but he came thousands of years after Moses.
DeleteMax wrote, "So what ethnicity the priests of On were is where we would find what Joseph's sons' ethnicity was."
ReplyDeleteThe Jews are divided on Asenath, the mother of Ephraim and Mannaseh. One school of thought is that she was an ethnic Egyptian. The other is that she was descended from Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and a Canaanite name Shechem. Who knows?
The ethnicity of Ephraim and Manasseh means little. They were probably half Egyptian. But that heritage would have been quickly diluted. A few generations and the Egyptian influence would be negligible. The question is how extensively did the Jews interbreed with the Egyptians when they were in Egypt. Hard to tell but a substantial number of Jews have the y-chromosome haplogroup of E. The Egyptians are haplogroup E but I don't know what subclades. This might indicate the interbreeding was extensive. Albert Einstein was haplogroup E. Haplogroup E is extensive throughout Africa. My guess is that there is a large North African component among the Jews.
You used a grammatical construction in your comment that would place you in the southern part of the United States.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NEO,
ReplyDeleteQuesteruk, April 11, 2022, posted a hypothetical in response to one of your op-eds:
“There you have the only surviving children of Zedekiah the king being daughters, so they carry the inheritance from their father with them. They then journey to Ireland and marry into royalty. Whatever the Y chromosome from the person they marry may be, it is that which would then be carried in their children, but also their children would carry the inheritance of the throne of David.
So the heirs to the throne of David have then neatly potentially switched Y chromosome.
That was the point I was making - and the same principle could apply to a degree to switching of national identity.”
Would you like to comment on this, in respect of the quotes below?
* DNA and the Origin of the Jews, thetorah.com/article/dna-and-the-origin-of-the-jews
“It is impossible to turn the testimony of DNA into a definitive account of the past. The process of assemblage, dot-connecting, and interpretation means there will also always be some degree of imagination involved in the construction of genetic history, and choices to make about which story to believe.
* Understanding genetic ancestry testing
“The haplogroup information is often accompanied by a story about the origin of your ancestors, including a map of the world with arrows indicating ancestral migrations. Hundreds of thousands of men from around the world have now had their Y-DNA tested, and we have a very good idea of the distribution of the different haplogroups in the present-day population. It is, however, difficult to be confident about where these haplogroups originated and how they spread; many different histories could explain their current distribution. Sometimes a company will associate a haplogroup with, for example, Viking, Norman or Saxon ancestry, but such associations are at best speculative and should be treated with caution. Just as today most haplogroups are shared among many populations, so would it have been for past populations. Furthermore, those past populations would have been genetically diverse, and different from the modern populations in their regions of origin.”
“The father line is just one lineage in your family tree, and as you go further back in time it represents a rapidly diminishing proportion of your total ancestry. For example, you have 64 great-great-great-great grandparents, and a man shares his Y-chromosome with just one of these 64 ancestors...”
(ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/departments/genetics-evolution-and-environment/research/molecular-and-cultural-evolution-lab/debunking-genetic-astrology/understanding-genetic-ancestry-testing
* Wade Cox, The Genetic Origin of the Nations, ccg.org/english/s/p265.html
What is also possible is that Haplogroup I is the major Semitic Haplogroup covering the Hebrews and extending to the Northern Israelites and also to the Elamites. Whilst we have found no Haplogroup I among the modern Assyrians, rather only G and J with L, some of Hg I might have occurred anciently. The prophecy that Israel and Assyria will come hand in hand out of the north in the Last Days at the restoration may be because they are both dispersed in Europe and some may well be Hg I; but modern testing shows no Hg I in those groups identified as modern Assyrians. Haplogroup J is thus a later Middle-Eastern development in the Arab countries after the Babylonian captivity and covering Jews and Ishmaelites and Edomites absorbed into Judah. Even on Evolutionary models, which are very skewed to earliest possible dates BCE, the J2 Cohen Modal Haplogroup (CMH) is admitted to be a possible 2,100 years old. Thus Hg I could well have preceded it by centuries and identify the Ten Tribes of Israel, who are then spread throughout Europe...
Not to worry, 12:42, because based on what you set forth, you have just confirmed what history told us already: The British royal family is actually German!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 12:42
ReplyDeleteBrief comments on your list:
1. So the heirs to the throne of David have then neatly potentially switched Y chromosome.
You cannot switch y chromosome haplogroups. If Zedekiah's daughters married locals their offspring with have the y chromosome haplogroup of the father and the mitochondrial haplogroup (mtDNA) of the mother.
2. "It is impossible to turn the testimony of DNA into a definitive account of the past."
It depends on the level of granularity you are talking about. It may not demonstrate every little detail but it is enough, for instance, to demonstrate that you are not an Israelite.
3. "Sometimes a company will associate a haplogroup with, for example, Viking, Norman or Saxon ancestry, but such associations are at best speculative"
Y chromosome haplogroups are a genetic tag that will tell you something about your masculine line. When it is accompanied by autosomal data it is much more informative. Vikings had haplogroups I, R1a, R1b and some mongoloid haplogroup that I cannot remember. I think it is N. So this diversity makes it difficult to create an association. The R1A could be German instead of Norwegian. It does require use of autosomal data and historical data in addition. It is far from being "speculative."
4. "The father line is just one lineage in your family tree, and as you go further back in time it represents a rapidly diminishing proportion of your total ancestry."
That is absolutely true. That is why you have to use autosomal data. And that is why in one case I used a genetic distance chart, based on autosomal data, to demonstrate how far the Middle Eastern Jews are from the British. Not even in the same ballpark.
5. "What is also possible is that Haplogroup I is the major Semitic Haplogroup covering the Hebrews and extending to the Northern Israelites and also to the Elamites."
There will be no support for that in the scientific community. Haplogroup J was in Palestine long, long before the Babylonian captivity. The idea that J arose after the Babylonian captivity and was magically absorbed into Judah converting them all from I to J - uh, staggers the imagination. I don't know why this guy is pushing haplogroup I. Haplogroup I is found in southern Scandinavia and southeastern Europe and otherwise peppered a little in various places in Europe. Most of the people Armstrongism identifies as Israel are haplogroup R1b. But I have seen only a small sample of what he has apparently written.
In short, haplogroups are just one piece of information. One must use autosomal data, archaeology and reliable history. These sources can give you a picture of the migrations of people only at a certain level of granularity. But it is well within the granularity level of genetics to determine that the people of Northwest Europe are not Israelites. If Mr. Cox (I did not know who he was. I had to look him up.) wants to venture out into the field of genetics he needs to get the consultation of scientists. I rely on scientific resources because I am not a geneticist. In Cox's list of educational attainments I see nothing in the area of science.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NeoDromos @8:35:00 PM PDT
ReplyDeleteThank you for the post.
Jeremiah tells us of the remnant of Judah who fled to Egypt with the king’s daughters.
Contrary to Gods instruction.
For fleeing they were warned the Babylonians would follow and wreck havoc on and thus destroy them.
Few would survive. The daughters of the king are not mentioned after this event.
Traditionally Judaism believes Jeremiah died and was buried in Mitzraim/Egypt.
We can assume the kings daughters perished there also.
Israel’s/Jewish history is full of tragedy and sadness.
As one of Jewish ancestry I am sobered by this and our recent past.
In general, I do not need to defend genetics no more than I need to defend chemistry or physics. The way that haplogroups are used and what they mean is not a device of my making. What I have done is applied standard meanings to the Biblical data. Some will hotly disagree with this not because they disbelieve genetics but because they believe the genealogical connections in the Bible are fable. To me, that is another issue. I can easily see where some genealogical material in the Bible is not fable but is allegorical. Maybe the original author and some later readers did not think it was allegory but we now know that it was because of advancement in science. In short, I have applied genetic standards, as I know them as a layman, to Biblical material and using data established by genetic science already.
ReplyDeleteMr. Cox, for instance, expresses some novel ideas and he must defend these ideas against the traditional views and findings of archaeology, history and the science of genetics. The fact is, British-Israelism fails under the scrutiny of science as that science is presently established. And the discrepancies are so glaring that it is inconceivable that future scientific discovery will resuscitate BI. But human belief is a remarkable property. There are well educated Mormons who still believe that Native Americans are Jews. And I think that belief will evolve but not go away. I feel the same way about BI. It may undergo change but it will always have a seat at the table in the Armstrongist domain. Human belief is highly personal.
********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Which Egyptian group was in power at the exodus time? That's the group the prophecy would refer to. I got that from an article or sermon in the 1960s.
ReplyDeleteYes, but where can one find this prophecy? Does it even exist?
DeleteNeoDromos @ 8:13:00 AM PDT
ReplyDeleteExcellent points raised about personal belief.
Such is the human condition.
BI will undoubtedly be a stable of Armstrongism for the foreseeable future in spite of the compelling evidence refuting this most erroneous doctrine. One can lead a horse to water but no one can make it drink.
So who thinks that the English do not show as Israelite genetically because of all the intermarriage.
ReplyDeleteThat DNA service sounds confused. Do they know the difference between Abraham and Jewish?
Arabs converted to Judaism too.
Could the Sephardic Jews be from Arabs?
Max @ 4:07:00 PM PDT
ReplyDeleteI refer you to,
aish.com
‘Ashkenazi versus Sephardic Jews’ by Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld.
Excellent material.
Also Professor Henry Abramson Lectures on Jewish history on YTube.
Happy reading and viewing.
4:07 and 5:45: Who could possibly know about these things from so long ago? And frankly, these were the sorts of conspiracy theories that were used to unnaturally manipulate us into doing someone else's thing. So, who even cares, unless you are making money off it, like the ACOG leaders?
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:48:00 AM PDT
ReplyDelete‘Who could possibly know about these things from so long ago?’
We are fortunate to know a reasonable amount of pass history, thanks to the study of linguistics, archeology, the arts, and now via the science of DNA, to name but a few of the avenues available to us today.
They certainly are not ‘conspiracy theories’ that are alluded to by your comment, but are the result of solid investigation by scholars with a great desire to understand human history down the ages.
That unscrupulous men have taken these treasures and manipulated them to give credence and legitimacy to suit their own narratives is no surprise. That is why sites such as this exist, to expose the fakes under the spotlight of critical inquiry.
I'd like to see everyone use initials or fake names so we don't have to bother with Anonymous if we want to discuss.
ReplyDeleteI looked at the aish link. Found nothing about Sephardic origin but was dumbfounded that Ashkenazi are from Gomer < Japheth. No Judah to be seen. They even created the English name of Germany. They sound more like Khazars.
Did NeoDromos say that all descendants of Adam are haplogroup J? That would have to be challenged.
Max 9:52
ReplyDeleteI would not look at any link that asserts that the Ashkenazi are not Jews. That is the calling card used by Anti-Semites. The autosomal genetic analysis of the Ashkenazi indicates that they are Jewish but mixed with Europeans - principally southern Europeans. You can find this informaion in Wikipedia - it's not hidden under a bushel. They may have Khazar ancestry - that does not cancel their essential Jewishness.
"Did NeoDromos say that all descendants of Adam are haplogroup J? That would have to be challenged."
Yes, I said that. Challenge it whenever you want. I will be glad to respond. If genetics is true and the Bible is true then all the people in the world should have Noah's haplogroup. The Bible gives the masculine line from Adam to Noah and then from Noah to the Jews and Adnani Arabs. And we can test these people. They are principally haplogroup J.
I have presented this information in the past and BI fans have tried to deny deduced conclusions and claim that Abraham could have been haplogroup R and that there is no way I could possibly know otherwise. The problem is that if that is true we should be able to dig up all kinds of bones in Palestine, especially in the area of the Ten Northern Tribes, extract the DNA from the bones and find that Palestine was once densely populated with haplogroup R people (Northwest Europeans are R1b primarily). That has never been found. British-Israelism is a snipe hunt. And people join the hunt because they want to believe that they are special to God and others aren't. This is a sad melody played in the key of low self-esteem. Southerners and rural Northerners are especially susceptible to this fantasy because the have been admittedly marginalized in American society. They want to stand tall as the "Chosen of God."
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NeoDromos, You jump from Noah to Jews, and then seem to imply that the other Caucasians are pre-Adamic.
ReplyDeleteThere's no such thing as me "wanting" to believe in BI.
If someone wrote that about J Ha'Adam, maybe they were just talking about the Abrahamic segment in their context.
Max wrote, "You jump from Noah to Jews, and then seem to imply that the other Caucasians are pre-Adamic."
ReplyDeleteYou got it. The R1b people (the Northwest Europeans) came into existence between 27,000 and 12,500 years ago. The traditional Adam appeared around 4,000 BP. The date for R1b is based on mutational rates and is controversial. But there is archaeological evidence. Ma'lta Boy found near Lake Baikal was haplogroup R and has been dated to 24,000 BP. Also, there is the archaeological presence of haplogroup R people in Northwest Europe anciently and no presence of these same people in Palestine.
"There's no such thing as me "wanting" to believe in BI."
If this is because you think it is an incontrovertible fact the then you are mistaken. You would be better off pleading your case by falling back on belief.
"If someone wrote that about J Ha'Adam, maybe they were just talking about the Abrahamic segment in their context."
I believe that God created Adam. When he did so, Adam had a haplogroup. That haplogroup will be passed through the masculine line. It mutates very, very slowly and virtually nothing would happen in the course of 6,000 years. So all of Adams descendants would be haplogroup J, not just those descended from Abraham. Haplogroup J did not begin with Adam. It was already in existence along with many other haplogroups at the time that Adam was created.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I will favor the option that Adam was R.
ReplyDeleteMax 2:53
ReplyDeleteThen you deny Jesus. He came to his own. He came to Palestine - at that time populated with the same Jews that live in the Middle East now. He did not come to Gentile Northwest Europe. There is no evidence provided by archaeogenetics that Gentile haplogroup R people inhabited Palestine. But, you know, there are neo-Nazi groups that believe Jesus was and Aryan. Maybe you could make common cause with them.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer