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.
