Chapter 5
The Migrations of the 10 Tribes
If Assyria carried the majority of the Northern Kingdom’s population
into captivity, where then did those Israelites ultimately go? They were last
seen heading Northeast — captives of one of the most feared and war-like people
in the ancient Near East. From that point forward in time, these Israelites
essentially vanish from recorded history.
Can we find the ten-tribe nation of Israel today?
If so, where are we to look for the evidence?
The best place to begin is the Bible itself. The prediction of the
prophet Amos expands our understanding of the record in 2 Kings 17:18-23, a
passage which indicates that the Eternal removed Israel “out of His sight” with
the result that “there was none left but the tribe of Judah only” in the land
of the Israelite kingdoms.
This prophet from Tekoa in northern Judea tells us that “the remnant
of Joseph” (Amos 5:15) would be scattered, but ultimately not lost entirely
from God’s view: “‘Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are on the sinful kingdom
[Israel as a political entity], and I will destroy it from the face of the
earth; Yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob,’ says the Lord. ‘For
surely I will command, and will sift the house [family] of Israel among all
nations, as grain is sifted in a sieve; yet not the smallest grain shall fall
to the ground’” (Amos 9:8-9).
With these passages in mind, we might expect that the migrations of
the tribes can be traced by hints in Scripture and biblical prophecies. Such is
exactly the case.
Where did the “lost tribes” go?
The Scriptures cited above imply that Israel would be sifted — that
they would be participants in a major migratory movement along with scores of
other ethnic groups — and then be divinely led to and planted in a permanent
home. This being the case, we can deduce from other passages that Israel’s new
land would be located to the north and west of the Promised Land.
The most frequently used verse in this regard is found in the Book of
Isaiah: “Surely these shall come from afar; Look! Those from the north and the
west, and these from the land of Sinim” (Isaiah 49:12;compare verse 20).
Since there was no expression in the Hebrew language corresponding to
the English “northwest,” it does no violence to the meaning of Isaiah’s
predictions to understand this passage to mean that Israel would migrate in a
northwesterly direction. But there are other biblical clues. Other sections of
Scripture often cited include Hosea 12:1. “Ephraim feeds on the wind, and
pursues the east wind” [i.e., an expression which implies moving to the west].
Jeremiah provides an interesting clue as well: “Go and proclaim these
words toward the north, and say: ‘Return, backsliding Israel’” (Jeremiah
3:11-12). Still different passages suggest that Israel will ultimately be found
in an island setting. “I will set his hand over the sea, and his right hand
over the rivers” (Psalm 89:25) and “Listen, O coastlands, to Me, and take heed,
you peoples from afar” (Isaiah 49:1). Also, “They shall come with weeping, and
with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of
waters, In a straight way in which they shall not stumble; for I am a Father to
Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn. Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and
declare it in the isles afar off, and say, “He who scattered Israel will gather
him, and keep him as a shepherd does his flock” (Jeremiah 31:9-10). Other
miscellaneous references to an island location include Jeremiah 31:1-3, 9-10;
Isaiah 24:15; 41:1, 5; 51:5; 66:19; and also Psalm 89:25. In addition, Isaiah
23:3 implies that Israel will be a maritime people (compare Ezekiel 17:4-5).
Collectively, all the passages cited above can be used to make the
case that the captive Israelites eventually moved from Mesopotamia, ultimately
settling in Northwestern Europe.
To the British Isles
The implication is that the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, on
whom the patriarch Jacob or Israel had specifically named his name (Genesis
48:16), finally settled in the British Isles.
If this use of Scripture seems contrived, there are other no less unusual
and surprising applications of God’s Word which were made by Jesus and still
later the apostles themselves. Even Roman Catholic theologian Paul Knitter who
probes the “scandal of particularity” — the claim that Jesus Christ represents
something thoroughly surprising, exceptional and unique in human history —
concedes the following: “Both critical Christians and skeptical humanists must
be open to the possibility that what they [the Evangelical Christians] are
saying may be true” (No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes
Toward the World Religions, pp. 45, 49).
In principle, Knitter’s concession applies similarly to the matter of
the identity of Israel in modern times. If the ten-tribes still exists and can
be found today among the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic peoples of the world, no amount of
eloquent or persuasive theological reasoning to the contrary can confute or
alter the plan and purpose of God. If our Biblical reasoning — in scholarly
language our hermeneutic — is sound
thus far, the historical evidence begins to bear a greater burden of proof.
But how did the Israelites get to Europe?
One of the most conspicuously obscure periods of history lies between
Israel’s 8th century B.C.E deportation and the appearance — seemingly from out
of nowhere — of Hengist, Horsa, and their Anglo-Saxons compatriots. These
people arrived on the Thanet off England’s southeast coast in around 449 C.E.
Finding Israel in the post-8th century B.C.E. ancient world is, of course, no
mean task. It approximates the proverbial looking for a needle in a haystack.
The Anglo-Saxons leave us no record of their past lineage. Like all other
inquiries of this nature, the results are restricted by the subjectivity of
interpreting the very incomplete historical record of antiquity.
Since records from the distant past are so partial — limited by the
ravages of time, war, and the elements, not to mention the intractable
difficulty of reconstructing the histories of the largely non-literate
populations — a single find in archaeology can literally overturn a whole
interpretive paradigm (or specific method of viewing the historical record) in
a matter of years.
Because of this factor, the reconstruction of ancient world history is
— and until the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:7-9) will remain —
subject to criticism and radically different interpretations of the same basic
evidence. Such limitations make the search for Israel’s trail particularly
challenging.
How then did the lost 10 tribes get from Mesopotamia in the Middle
East to Northwestern Europe and the British Isles? This scenario seems unlikely
— a unique interpretation of both historical facts and the Word of God. The
former leaves us very little to go on — only shards of historical evidence.
However, if there is a paucity of primary resource material, the broad contours
of the story can be reconstructed from the fragments of history we possess so
far.
Sidebar: Post-Captivity Israel and the Extra-biblical
Record
The two principal extra-biblical references to post-captivity Israel
come from 1st century C.E. Jewish historian, Josephus, and the apocryphal work
we know as II Esdras (ca. C.E. 70-135).
In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus writes that “the entire
body of the people of Israel remained in that country [to which the Assyrians
deported them]; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject
to the Romans, while the 10 tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an
immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers” (Book 11, Chapter V,
Section 2). It is not known where Josephus got his information.
The account of Esdras reads: “Then you saw him collecting a different
company, a peaceful one. They are the 10 tribes which were taken off into exile
in the time of King Hoshea, whom Shalmaneser king of Assyria took prisoner. He
deported them beyond the [Euphrates] River, and they were taken away into a
strange country. But then they resolved to leave the country populated by the
Gentiles and go to a distant land never inhabited by man [2 Samuel 7:10], and
there at last to be obedient to their laws, which in their own country they had
failed to keep [Leviticus 26:18-21]. “As they passed through the narrow
passages of the Euphrates, the Most High performed miracles for them, stopping
up the channels of the river until they had crossed over [compare the Israelite
crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:16, 21-22) and later the Jordan River
(Joshua 3:13)].
“Their journey through that region, which is called Arzareth, was
long, and took a year and a half. They have lived there ever since, until this
final age. Now they are on their way back, and once more the Most High will
stop the channels of the river [Isaiah 27:6, 12-13] to let them cross” (2
Esdras 13:39-47, from the Apocrypha). While the records of neither Josephus nor
Esdras merit the credibility of inspired and canonized Scripture, there is very
likely a core of truth in the accounts that both writers have preserved for us.
After all, they wrote about a period less than 700 years earlier.
With particular reference to Esdras’ record, one of the most creative
(if subjective) explanations of how Israel’s trek can be demonstrated is found
in an article by John Hulley (a.k.a., Yochanan Hevroni Ben David) “Did
Any of the Lost Tribes Go North? Is the ‘Sambatyon’ the Bosphorus?,” published
in B’Or Ha’Torah, No. 6 (in English), 1987 (pp. 127-133). The author explores
the tradition that indicates that the lost tribes are located beyond the
“Sambatyon,” a river which is said to have rested — ceased its flow — on the
Sabbath day (compare Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 65B; Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 10:6; Lamentations Rabba 2:9; Genesis Rabba 11:5and 73:6; Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan to Exodus 34:10; also Nachmanides on Deuteronomy 32:36).
Through the Bosporus
Hulley demonstrates that the narrow strait of the Bosphorus, through
which pass the waters of the Black Sea into the Aegean, is likely the “river”
about which tradition speaks. “There the current does slow down drastically,
stop or even reverse on average about once a week” (p. 128). He offers an
explanation of the physical process which produces this unusual phenomenon. The
Bosphorus would have been a likely area through which some of the migrating
Israelites would have passed on their journey out of Assyrian captivity and on
to the European Continent.
Hulley concludes his article with a refreshingly balanced approach by
writing, “these pieces of evidence are circumstantial, and the identification
can therefore only be conjectural. On the other hand, they are unique, and
their combination is exceptional.” There are many other interesting and
plausible theories about how Israel made the trek from the Middle East to
Northwestern Europe. One such treatment is W. E. Filmer’s article, “Our
Scythian Ancestors,” which proposes an Israelite migration well east of the
route suggested by Hulley above, and through the Dariel Pass in the Caucasus
Mountains. Filmer argues that a network of Scythian tombs dating from the early
6th century B.C.E. through the mid-4th century B.C.E. exists to the northwest
of the area and documents the course of Israelite migrations. He believes that
these travelers filled the expanse between the Sea of Azov and the Carpathian
Mountains.
Based on evidence derived from some similarities in burial practices,
Filmer attempts to connect the Israelites/Scythians with the Germanic
population which arrived along the coasts of the southern Baltic Sea several
centuries later. His argument, as interesting as it may be, falls somewhat
short in making an indisputable connection between Israel and the Scythian
tombs (see also Raymond F. McNair, “Hard, Physical Evidence,” America and
Britain in Prophecy, p. 42).
Evidence of a route through Assyria?
Finally, one of the richest and most detailed descriptions of Israel’s
departure from Assyrian territory comes from Major Bertram De W. Weldon (The
Origin of the English, 2nd ed., Revelation, 1919, pp. 48-52).
Bringing his military experience to bear, he equates the freeing of
the Israelites with the defeat of the Assyrians at the hands of Nabopolassar
(626-605 B.C.E.) of Babylon in a sequence of engagements: initially in 612
B.C.E. with the fall of Nineveh; at the first Battle of Carchemish in 609
B.C.E.; and the final knock out blow several years later, again at Carchemish,
site of the last remaining Assyrian stronghold (605 B.C.E.).
Drawing from the apocryphal Book of Tobit (ca. 250-175 B.C.E.), Weldon
suggests that Tobit, both a leader in the Israelite community and an Assyrian
official, believed a return to Palestine would be impractical. Hostile armies
blocked the route back home and Egyptian garrisons occupied Judah. Weldon
opines: “Between the country of the Carducci and the armies of the Medes a
narrow gap lay open. This was the route through the Caucasus... With some dim
traditions of their former Exodus to hearten them, with the encouragement given
by the more recent prophetic messages that had reached them [allegedly from
Jeremiah — p. 48], the tribes left their starting point (probably in the region
of Ecbatana), crossed the upper waters of the Euphrates, where their enemies
very nearly cut them off [compare II Esdras 13:43-44], and swung North through
the Caucasus into Scythia.
“In the Caucasus one of the important passes bears the name of the
‘gates of Israel’ to this day... The flight of Israel, which may be dated 608
B.C.E, the year of the battle of Carchemish [sic.], would bring the tribes
across the upper Euphrates, through the passes of the Caucasus, into the vast
and barren plains of the Scythian steppes.”
The booklet America and Britain in Prophecy (1996) does a
commendable job in presenting the historical evidence documenting Israel’s
location and movements in ancient history (see Raymond McNair, “Anglo-American
Ethnic Roots,”, pp. 28-44). His work is especially interesting concerning the
connections between Israel and the ancient world people known to us as the
Celts, Cimmerians, and Scythians.
Mr. McNair’s booklet makes these associations with good cause.
Scandinavian scholar Anne Katrine Gade Kristensen includes an argument in favor
of identifying the Cimmerians as Israelite in her volume, Who Were the
Cimmerians, and Where Did They Come From? Sargon II, the Cimmerians, and Rusa I
(see especially chapter 3, pp. 118- 122).
It is significant that other historians have argued that the
successive waves of “Germanic” migrants — the Volkeswanderung — into
Southeastern and central Europe were essentially comprised of the same ethnic
group. The movement itself is a complicated one.
The enigma of Germanic origins
Many twentieth-century historians and sociologists have tried to
explain who the Germans were and why they emigrated, but scholars have not had
much success at answering these questions. The surviving evidence is primarily
archaeological, scanty, and not yet adequately explored.
Why did the Germans emigrate? We do not know. “The cause and nature of
the Volkeswanderung challenge the inquirer as much as ever. Scholars are
hampered in answering these questions [about who the Germans were] because the
Germans, like other wandering tribes, could not write and thus kept no written
records before their conversion to Christianity” [generally considered when
Frankish King Clovis became Christian in C.E. 498].
Our knowledge of the Germans depends largely on information in records
written in the sixth and seventh centuries and projected backward (McKay, et.
al., History of Western Society, 3rd ed., pp. 210, 212-214).
Undoubtedly, the groups of Israelites that departed from Mesopotamia,
as part of this general movement, left the land of their captivity in sizable
but distinct and separate groups. Various respective parties probably followed
different routes. Moreover, as implied by the prophecy of Amos 9:9 — that
Israel would be sifted “among all nations, like corn is sifted in a sieve” —
intermixed with the many other peoples moving northward to escape from harm’s
way from the invading armies coming out of the lower Tigris- Euphrates river
valley.
With this in mind, we must be careful not to generalize. Not all
Scythians, Cimmerians, or Celts were Israelites. Indeed, the term “Scythian”
appears to be more a generic name for tribal peoples rather than for a specific
ethnic group. Of course, some Israelites no doubt were included among those so
designated after the close of the 7th century B.C.E. Scripture itself may
include a backhanded allusion to this very fact. Note in Colossians 3:11 the
interesting biblical use of the term “Scythian” in juxtaposition to
“Barbarian.” This passage legitimately can be understood to imply Israelite
versus non-Israelite, just as the similar phraseology “neither Jew nor Greek”
in Galatians 3:28 suggests.
If all of these various arguments hold a certain appeal, they fall
short of being absolutely conclusive. The trail of Israel out of the upper
Mesopotamian river valley is less conspicuous than we would like it to be.
Nevertheless, it is not that difficult to deduce how groups of Israelites must
have moved slowly and inexorably in a northwesterly direction.
British-Israelite literature — with varying degrees of support from historical
documentation — typically includes some of the following threads in its
rendition of how this migration occurred.
Some interesting possibilities
Some members of Israelitish clans left Israel well before the 8th
century B.C.E. deportation began. In particular, a number of Danites departed
Israel shortly after the 15th century B.C.E. Exodus from Egypt, going first to
Greece but eventually settling in Ireland. During the reign of Solomon and
other subsequent kings, it is possible that Israelite colonists left Israel for
Britain, Ireland, and northwestern European coastlands.
The Bible tells us that Solomon had a navy which he operated with the
Phoenicians (1 Kings 9:26-28; 2 Chronicles 8:18; 9:21). We know the Phoenicians
established colonies in North Africa, Spain, and Ireland. At a minimum, some
Israelites would have been aware of Phoenician activity in Europe. It is a
reasonable possibility that the Israelites also may have been involved in
commercial or colonial activity in these same areas.
Sidebar: The Red Hand of Ulster
One of the most fascinating legends in Irish history explains the
origin of Ulster’s heraldic symbol, the Red Hand. Although accounts may differ
from one source to another, there is general agreement that the symbol is tied
to a family named O’Neill. According to legend, there was a boat race between
the chieftains of the O’Neill and McDonnell families to determine ownership of
the Ulster area. Whoever’s hand reached shore first was to receive the land.
As both boats neared the shoreline, the O’Neill chieftain saw he was
going to lose the race. To reverse that outcome, he cut off his right hand and
flung it to the shore where it touched dry land before McDonnell could arrive.
As a result, O’Neill became the Prince of Ulster. Still today, in memory of
this episode of Irish history, the Province of Ulster bears as its symbol the
renowned Red Hand. (Note the red lion on the British Royal Standard.)
Those who believe that the throne of David resided in Ireland from the
6th century B.C.E. through 9th century C.E. often make an interesting and quite
different connection between the Red Hand of Ulster and the biblical account,
about the birth of Judah’s twin sons, Pharez and Zarah (Genesis 38:28-30). The
Bible places a special focus on this story and rightly so. As the time of birth
drew near, Zarah extended his hand out of his mother’s womb. The attending
midwife, wanting to insure that the family knew which child was firstborn, tied
a scarlet thread around the baby’s wrist. To everyone’s surprise, the babies
repositioned themselves, and Pharez became the first to emerge from Tamar’s
body. Thus deprived of primogeniture, Zarah’s descendants eventually sought a
better future by migrating to Europe.
Some suggest that Calcol, Zarah’s grandson led the family of Zarah on
a migration west temporarily settling in Spain. Calcol finally continued his
travels, founding the Kingdom of Ulster near the end of the 17th century B.C.E.
The Zaharite presence in the Emerald Isle, British-Israelites would argue, is
the real origin of Ulster’s Red Hand.
Whatever one may conclude concerning the historicity of the migrations
of Zarah, it is a curious fact of history that until 1920, the official Arms of
Northern Ireland included a scarlet thread encircling the heraldic Red Hand.
For additional information, see W. Howard Bennett’s Symbols of Our
Celto-Saxon Heritage.
The majority of Israelites, however, remained geographically
stationery until the 8th century B.C.E. At that point, the Assyrians under
Tiglath-pilesar began taking the Israelites into captivity as early as the
730s, with the final and great deportation from Samaria commencing in 721. The
beginning of the end for the Assyrian Empire came in 612 B.C.E. with the
destruction of Nineveh.
The final demise came at the Battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.E.) when
the Babylonians, Persians, and their Scythian allies dealt Assyria a knockout
blow. After that point and perhaps even shortly before, some of the Israelite
tribes in captivity south of the Caspian Sea undoubtedly began to free
themselves and migrate towards Europe. This migratory process moved in fits and
starts, extending over several centuries. The first wave of Israelite people
(very likely the Cimmerian or Celtic people) migrated from Assyria through the
Caucasus mountains and then into Western Europe. Those people became known to
the Greek writers by the name “Celts” (Kelts) but were called Gauls by the
Romans. The second wave of Israelites (probably the Scythians) migrated around
the eastern side of the Caspian Sea before turning westward. They passed
through what is now south Russia into northern Poland and Germany.
They were pressed from the rear by the Samarthians, better know today
as the Slavs. The Scythians overspread much of Northwest Europe and
Scandinavia, eventually taking on names such as Normans, Danes, Swedes, Franks,
Lombards, Scots, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and other less familiar appellations of
the various Germanic tribes. Invariably, British-Israelite literature places
the tribe of Joseph in the British Isles. From here the story is not only
beyond dispute but relatively clear since no one questions whether the British
are Celtic and Anglo-Saxon or that the Unites States was initially settled by
people of that same ethnicity.
In subsequent sections of this paper we will explore in greater depth
the historical evidence connecting the tribe of Joseph to the Anglo-American
peoples. Before we do so, we should examine a different but related
tribes-people. If Joseph’s descendants settled finally in the British Isles,
what then of his brothers?
Other tribal identities
How can we know where each respective tribe eventually settled? If
this question is less important than the story of modern-day Joseph, its answer
is quite significant in magnifying our appreciation of how the bequeathing of
the birthright blessings eventually occurred in the late-18th and early-19th
centuries (the timing of which will be explained in Chapter 6).
An interesting dimension of the question of modern tribal identities
relates to a titanic “struggle for the Birthright” (Genesis 25:22) which
continued beyond the biblical record. This story, recorded in modern history,
provides convincing if subjective evidence of the identity of both modern-day
Joseph and his brothers.
As early as the 17th century, we see periodic bids by the Northwestern
European and Scandinavian nation-states to dominate the European Continent. Are
we witnessing in these struggles for power a picture of sibling rivalry writ
large as the expiration of a withholding of the Birthright blessing inexorably
drew near? If so, one brother after another — the Swedes, the Dutch, and
finally the French — fell short in herculean efforts to usurp the promises made
to Joseph and his two sons.
The description of the passing on of the promise to Abraham as
recorded in Genesis 48:22 reveals that the descendants of Joseph would have
“one portion above his brethren” (compare Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Ezekiel 47:13).
We should expect then by implication to find considerable wealth in the hands
of the modern-day descendants of the remaining tribes. Such is
undeniably the case today among the people of Northwestern Europe and
Scandinavia.
Much research has been done by French, Dutch and Scandinavian
adherents of the Anglo-Israel movement to link their nations with one or
another of the tribes. If such identifications remain somewhat conjectural,
there is good circumstantial evidence which gives us confidence in making
specific connections, particularly with three of those tribes. Herbert W.
Armstrong also explored the question of tribal identities other than Ephraim
and Manasseh but largely in a general way. He writes:
“But what about the other tribes of the so-called ‘lost 10 tribes?’
... The other eight tribes of Israel [excluding Judah, Joseph, Levi, and
Benjamin] were also God’s chosen people. They, too, have been blessed with a
good measure of material prosperity — but not the dominance of the
birthright... The countries of Europe [are] prosperous compared to the teeming
illiterate masses [of the world]...
“Suffice it to say here that there is evidence that these other eight
tribes, along with elements of the tribe of Benjamin, which were swept up in
the Assyrian conquest of most of the biblical land of Israel, have descended
into such Northwestern European nations as Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland,
northern France, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Finland. The
political boundaries of Europe, as they exist today, do not necessarily show
lines of division between descendants of these original tribes of Israel” (United
States and Britain in Prophecy, pp. 104-105, 152-153).
In the case of one tribe outside of Joseph, Herbert Armstrong made a
specific and important connection. He believed it possible to locate the
descendants of Reuben. He writes, “The tribe of Reuben settled in the country
that is France today. They had lost their national identity. But the French
have the very characteristics of their ancestor Reuben [Genesis 49:3-4]” (United
States and Britain in Prophecy, p. 146 —
compare pp. 40, 42, 104-105, 148-149, 152-153). This identification is
an important one which the historical record and logical deduction does much to
affirm.
Seen from the British-Israel perspective, the long-term Anglo-French
rivalry through Western history — an enmity which reached crescendo around the
very decades when we would expect Joseph’s sons to be positioning themselves to
inherit the Birthright blessings — was in fact a struggle between Jacob’s two
firstborns over the colossal inheritance about to be extended.
Remember, once Reuben had illicit relations with Bilhah (Genesis
35:22), the birthright passed directly from Reuben to Joseph.
1 Chronicles 5:1-2 clearly supports this view. Joseph becomes Jacob’s
“second firstborn” — indeed the firstborn of the woman he had intended to marry
as his first (presumably his only?) wife (Genesis 29:20-30).
The Louisiana Purchase — its crucial importance!
Viewed from this perspective, the history of the turn of the 19th
century takes on added importance and significance. The Louisiana Purchase
(1803) — Napoleon’s sale of the Louisiana territory on behalf of France to the
U.S.A. — becomes a type of the handing of the Birthright from Reuben to Joseph.
This grand transition illustrates another interesting feature which is a type
of the character of Reuben as described in scripture. The sons of Jacob chafed
under the preferential treatment given by the father to his favorite son
(Genesis 37:2-4). Their anger slowly simmered over Joseph’s open sharing of his
self-flattering dreams (verses 5-10).
Although Reuben liked these circumstances no better than his other
brothers (verse 4), his sense of responsibility as the firstborn would not
allow him to consent to his younger brother’s death at the hands of his jealous
and resentful siblings (verse 21). Indeed, Reuben’s subtle ultimate aim when
the hostile brothers expressed their murderous intentions was to “deliver him
[Joseph] out of their hands” (verse 22).
On discovering that the other brothers had sold Joseph into slavery,
Reuben grieved and tore his clothes (verse 29-30), something which he angrily
reminded his brothers about when standing uncomfortably in the presence of the
Egyptian prime minister some two decades later (Genesis 42:22). Reuben’s
ambivalence toward Joseph is reflected in the story of Anglo-French
relationship.
The sale of the Louisiana Territory at the ridiculously low price of
five cents an acre (the total sale price amounted to about $15 million for 8.28
million square miles of the world’s richest and most fertile land) prompted
Napoleon’s now famous remark, “this accession of territory affirms forever the
power of the United States and I have just given England a maritime rival that
sooner or later will lay low her pride.”
With one hand France extended untold treasures to one branch of
Joseph’s family, and with the other, she reduced in relative but very real
material terms the power of the other branch. Napoleon’s intent was to use some
of the proceeds of the sale price to prepare for renewed conflict with his
adversary across the English Channel.
Was the ambivalent relationship between descendants of Reuben and
Joseph inevitable? Certainly Reuben forfeited with great reluctance the premier
position to his younger half-brother. Jacob’s words as recorded in Genesis 48:5
implies that Ephraim and Manasseh took the place of Reuben and Simeon, the
first two sons born by Leah. This understanding helps us appreciate yet another
issue, this one concerning the modern-day identity of Joseph. Where today do we
find his sons Ephraim and Manasseh?