|
Chapter
3-- |
America
& Britain in Prophecy:
Anglo-American
Ethnic Roots
In his 1976 book, Destination America, Maldwyn A. Jones says that most
Americans have preferred to mix culturally, socially and religiously
with those of their own ethnic background: "They seldom intermarried and
it was soon clear that intermingling, far from producing social unity,
generated ethnic discord which could erupt into open violence. Insofar as
the melting pot functioned at all, it did so slowly and imperfectly"
("Myth of the Melting Pot," p. 145).
In an interesting Los Angeles Times article, Ernest W. Lefever (a senior
fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.) reported, "Most
Americans seem to have given up the dream of a serene melting pot--as
both unrealistic and perhaps a bit un-American. Many of us have
settled for a less demanding metaphor of America as a bountiful and variegated salad
bowl" ("America Is Being Ripped Apart," Aug. 8, 1993).
|
Who Were the Germans? |
|
Today, many are confused regarding the word "German"
as commonly used in history books. Modern Germans have never referred
to themselves as "Germans." They call themselves Deutsch-and
their country, Deutschland. Spanish-speaking peoples today call
Germany by the name Alemania. There are two French words for
"German." One is Allemand, which, according to the
authoritative French dictionary, Le Petit Robert, is derived from the
Latin word Alamanni, a people who were part of the confederation of
German peoples (p. 50). The other word is Germain, from the Latin word
Germanus. The French dictionary offers a possible etymological sense
(descriptive, literal meaning from root word origins) of "born of the
same father and mother" or "of the same blood" (p. 862). When
the Norman French conquered England in 1066 A.D., a whole host of French
words entered into Anglo-Saxon-Celtic usage, which in this case is easily
seen. |
Of what ethnicity are most
Americans? A July 7, 1986, article in U.S. News & World Report
revealed that, based on 1980 census figures, nearly 80 percent of Americans
polled claimed descent from Northwest Europe: "The government found
out that there were 134 different ethnicities living in the United States. The
largest number--nearly 50 million, or 22 percent of the population [at the
time]--claimed English lineage. Americans of German ancestry are
almost as numerous. Just behind them are people with Irish ancestors."
According to that article, here are the actual figures given in the 1980
census: English, 49.6 million; German, 49.2 million; Irish, 40.2 million;
French, 12.9 million; Scottish, 10 million; Dutch, 6.3 million; Swedish, 4.3
million; Norwegian, 3.5 million; Welsh, 1.7 million; Danish, 1.5 million. This
adds up to a total of 179.2 million U.S. citizens who claimed descent from the
peoples of Northwest Europe.
Americans who are not of Northwest European ancestry make up only about one
quarter of the total U.S. population. Latest population figures reveal that
blacks constitute only 11.9 percent of the American populace while Hispanics
make up only 9.5 percent (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1995 Book of the Year,
p. 741).
A Whole Nation
"Sifted"
Remember from chapter two that God said He would "SIFT the house of ISRAEL
among all nations, as grain is sifted in a SIEVE; yet not the smallest grain
shall fall to the ground" (Amos 9:9). An interesting "parallel"
has occurred in American history.
For years, immigrants to the U.S. were greeted by the Statue of Liberty on
their way to America's chief port of entry, Ellis Island. Notice what Maldwin
Jones says: "Ellis Island was a gigantic SIEVE, whose sole
function was to keep out undesirables.... [and serve as a gateway] to America
for sixteen million immigrants" (pp. 54, 64).
It is interesting to note that U.S. immigration laws and policies--during much
of America's critical, formative years and up until the middle of the 20th
century--deliberately favored the peoples of Northwest Europe while, at the
same time, limiting white peoples from southern or eastern Europe. This idea of
a "sieve" has circulated since the early American settlements--and God
was seen as the One doing the sifting: "The Puritan founders of New
England never doubted that they were, in a quite special way, God's chosen
people. One of their leaders spoke of God's having 'SIFTED a whole nation'
in order to find the instruments which were to work out His purposes in the new
world" (p. 18).
American President Calvin Coolidge echoed this sentiment in 1923: "It has
often been said God sifted the nations that He might send choice grain into
the wilderness [of America]. Who can fail to see in it the hand of destiny?
Who can doubt that it [the U.S.] has been guided by the hand of God?"
John Hay, the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, made this incisive
statement in 1787: "Providence [had] been pleased to give this one
connected country to one united people--a people descended from the
same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion,
attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners
and customs." Yes, the peoples who formed the 13 original British colonies
were overwhelmingly of British stock and spoke the "mother tongue,"
English.
As we learned in the last chapter, the British Isles--and most of continental
Europe--were populated in ancient times by the Celts. However, Great
Britain was eventually overrun by peoples from the east known as the Angles
and Saxons. In time, the Anglo-Saxons would come to dominate all the
countries which made up the British Isles--the Angles even giving their name to
England (Angland). The Celts were pushed west. Yet, even today, a
substantial portion of the British population remains Celtic.
|
W |
hat are the ancestral roots
of the British and American peoples? Is America just a blend of all manner of
ethnicities--a "mongrel nation" as Adolph Hitler labeled it? And what
about the Britons? Aren't they primarily a Germanic people? Who are these
peoples really? These are some of the fascinating questions we will be tackling
in this chapter.
Is America a
"Melting Pot"?
Who Were the Celts?
Who were the Celtic peoples? The Britannica states, "Celt... the
generic name of an ancient people, the bulk of whom inhabited the central and
western parts of Europe" ("Celt," 11th ed., vol. 5).
World Book Encyclopedia says, "The first Celts were
a mixed people. They tended to be fair-haired and light-skinned, but some had
darker-colored hair and complexion [brunets]. They were taller than many of
their neighbors, but not so tall as the Norsemen" ("Celts," vol.
3).
The same entry continues, "Little is known of the Celts until about 500
B.C. Then they were found mainly in southwestern Germany, but later, the
Celts ranged east, west, and south. They soon spread over most of western
Europe. In the British Isles, they were divided into two branches. One branch,
which included the Irish, the Manx, and the Highland Scots, spoke Goidelic
[Gaelic]. The other branch to which the Welsh [Cymry], the Cornish [of
Cornwall, England], and the Bretons [of Brittany, France] belonged, spoke
Brythonic. The Celts in Europe developed the Gaulish language."
History clearly shows that, eventually, few of the Celts remained east of the
Rhine River. In the days of Julius Caesar (1st century B.C.), the Celtic lands
included northern Italy, northeastern Spain, France, Belgium, Denmark, western
Germany and Switzerland. Also, a small group of Gauls (Celts or
"Galatians") settled in central Asia Minor and was still there in the
first century A.D. As a wide-ranging, on-the-move people, the Celts were united
in their languages, dress and culture--and in their pagan religion (druidism).
Caesar wrote about the Celts in his Gallic Wars. But his is not the
definitive history to which we will look for the ancient origins of these
peoples. For that, we must turn elsewhere.
Of the many thousands of books dealing with ancient history, none has presented
ancient British origins in as clear and accurate a light as the monumental,
multi-volume work, The History of the Anglo-Saxons from the Earliest Period
to the Norman Conquest by the well-respected English historiographer,
Sharon Turner (1768-1842). He says, "Europe... has been peopled by
three great streams of population from the East, which have followed each
other, at intervals so distinct, as to possess languages clearly separable from
each other. The earliest of these... comprised the Cimmerian and Celtic
race. The second consisted of the Scythian, Gothic, and German tribes;
from whom most of the modern nations of continental Europe have descended"
(vol. 1, p. 3).
According to Turner, the "third and most recent" ethnic group to
migrate into Europe was the "Slavonian and Sarmatian nations... who
have now established themselves in Poland, Bohemia, Russia, and their
vicinities. It is from the first two generations of the European population
[Celts and Scythians] that the ancient inhabitants of England successively
descended.... The earliest of these that reached the northern and
western confines of Europe, the Cimmerians and Celts, may be regarded as our
first ancestors; and from the German or Gothic nations who formed, with the
Scythians, the second great flood of population into Europe, our Anglo-Saxon
and Norman ancestors proceeded" (pp. 4, 21).
Samuel Lysons wrote about "the Cimmerians seeming to be the same
people [as] the Gauls or Celts under a different name; and it is
observable that the Welsh, who are descended from the Gauls, still call
themselves Cymri or Kymry" (Our British Ancestors, 1865, pp.
23, 27).
Turner mentions that the ancient Celtic and Cimmerian languages were the same.
He also says "that the Kimmerioi of the Greeks were the Kimbroi
of the Greeks, and the Cimbri of the Latin writers.... Diodorus Siculus
expressly says, that to those who were called Kimmerioi, the appellation
of Kimbron was applied in the process of time.... Plutarch, in his Life
of Marius, also identifies the Kimbri with the Kimmerioi"
(footnote, p. 28).
Turner also noted that the Keltoi (Celts) were the same people as the Galatai,
and that they, in turn, were the same as the Galli (the Gauls), and that
the Keltoi were "one of the branches of the Cimmerian
stock" (p. 36).
Who Were the
Anglo-Saxons?
According to the 1980 U.S. Census figures previously cited, "Germans"
were the second-largest ethnic group in America after the English. Of course,
if we count all peoples of British stock (English, Scots, Irish and Welsh), we
find them more than twice as numerous as the Germans. Still, the
"Germans" represent a sizable portion of America's ethnic background.
Moreover, even the English have descended from early "Germanic"
invaders of Britain. Exactly who were these people?
Teutons or "Germans" migrated to England as Angles, Saxons and
Jutes in the decades immediately following the departure of the Roman
legionnaires from Britain around 410 A.D. In The Story of English, a
1986 companion book to the PBS television series of the same name, authors
McCrum, Cran and MacNeil say, "The tribes which now threatened the Celtic
chiefs of Britain were essentially Germanic.... There are, Tacitus
[famed Roman historian, c. 55-120 A.D.] writes, seven tribes.... One of these
seven barbarous tribes was the Angli, known to history as the Angles, who
probably inhabited the area that is now known as Schleswig-Holstein
[immediately south of Denmark on the Jutland Peninsula].... The speech of the Angli
belonged to the Germanic family of languages" (pp. 56-58).
According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Angli (Angles)
definitely had a close affinity with the Saxons ("Saxons," 11th ed.,
vol. 24). The Story of English continues, "To this day the
[cultural] gap between the English on the one hand and the Welsh, the Scots and
the Irish on the other, is often huge.... To the Celts, their German
conquerors (Angles, Jutes and Saxons) were all Saxons" (p. 61).
So historians are generally agreed in referring to all the major peoples who
followed the Celts into Britain as "Germans." But, as we will examine
shortly, they were quite different from other tribes, whose descendants today
inhabit Germany. Still later, some of those so-called "Germans" who
had settled in Britain migrated to America as British colonists. After the
British North American colonies were founded, numerous other
"Germans" left Germany and began flooding into those British
colonies.
Who were the "Germanic" Saxons? Sharon Turner says, "The
Saxons were a... Scythian tribe; and of the various Scythian nations which
have been recorded, the Sakai, or Sacae, are the people from whom
the descent of the Saxons may be inferred with the least violation of
probability. Sakai-Suna or the Sons of Sakai, abbreviated into Saksun,
which is the same sound as Saxon, seems a reasonable etymology of the word
'Saxon.' The Sakai, who in Latin are called Sacae, were an
important branch of the Scythian nation. They were so celebrated,
that the Persians called all the Scythians by the name of Sacae; and Pliny [the
Elder, Roman historian, A.D. 23-79]... speaks of them as among the most
distinguished people of Scythia (Pliny, lib. vi. c. 19). Strabo [Greek
historian, c. 63 B.C.- 24 A.D.] places them eastward of the Caspian
[Sea]" (p. 87)!
According to historian William Camden, the Saxons and the Getae (Goths) were
related Scythian peoples. He writes, "But that [opinion] of the most
learned German seems most probable and worthy to be embraced, which makes the
Saxons descend from the Sacae, the most considerable people of Asia, and
to be so called quasi Sacasones, or Sons of the Sacae, and
to have gradually overspread Europe from Scythia or Sarmatia Asiatica, with the
Getae, Suevi, Daci, and others. Nor is their opinion ill-founded, which brings
the Saxons out of Asia" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 1, p.
151). Herodotus says, "For the Persians call all the Scythians
Sacae" (Polymnia, bk. 7, para. 64).
The famous English poet and historian, John Milton--author of the classic work,
Paradise Lost--wrote, "They [the Saxons] were a people thought by
good writers to be descendants of the Sacae, a kind of Scythians in the
north of Asia, who with a flood of other northern nations came into Europe,
toward the declining of the Roman Empire [c. 400s A.D.]" (History of
England, 1835, bk. 3, pp. 406-407). Scythian artifacts from many thousands
of tombs have been found all across southern Russia and as far west as Berlin.
Anciently, the vast, sparsely inhabited land stretching from eastern Europe far
into Asia was known as "Scythia." In fact, at one time or another,
the Scythian people were scattered from the Carpathian Mountains, eastward
across the Steppes of southern Russia, all the way to the Great Wall of China!
The area north of the Black Sea, however, was their main center from about the
fifth century B.C. until they migrated westward from that region during the
first centuries of the Christian Era.
The westward migration of the Scythians into Europe greatly diminished their
numbers in their Asian homeland. This enabled them to be pushed completely out
of Asia and eastern Europe by the Sarmatians--the ancestors of the Slavs. Many
modern nations of Europe can claim descent from the Scythians: "This
second stock of the European population [the Scythians] is peculiarly interesting
to us [Anglo-Saxons], because from its branches not only our own immediate
ancestors, but also those of the most celebrated nations of modern Europe, have
unquestionably descended.
"The Anglo-Saxons, lowland Scots, Normans, Danes, Norwegians, Swedes,
Germans, Dutch, Belgians, Lombards and Franks have all sprung from that great
fountain of the human race, which we have distinguished by the terms SCYTHIAN,
German, or Gothic" (Turner, pp. 82-83)! For his unparalleled work in
ancient historiography, Turner is certainly to be highly respected. But is his
identification of the Scythians with the Germans accurate?
Are the Anglo-Saxons
True Germans?
Most true Germans are characterized by "Alpine" round skulls (see
box: "Who
Were the Germans?"). Yet ethnologist Madison Grant writes, "In
the study of European populations the great and fundamental fact about the
British Isles is the almost total absence there today of true Alpine round skulls"
(p. 137).
Ripley, in The Races of Europe, says, "The most remarkable trait of
the population of the British Isles is its head form; and especially the
uniformity in this respect which is everywhere manifested. The prevailing type
is that of the long and narrow cranium, accompanied by an oval rather than
broad or round face" (p. 303). Remember that this is the same as the
northern Celtic type. It is also the same as the Teutonic, Scandinavian
type--the Scythian type!
|
Nomadic Horsemen |
|
It is helpful to note that anyone who lived in the vast region
of Scythia (beyond the limits of the Greco-Roman world) was looked upon as a
"Scythian"-a term which incorrectly came to be synonymous with
"barbarian" from the perspective of Greek and Roman writers.
Actually, the Scythian tribes had a well-developed, though nomadic,
way of life. These nomads dwelled mainly in tents or wagons. They raised some
crops, but their main talent was in tending livestock: cattle, sheep, goats
and especially horses! |
In a 1915 article "Are We Cousins to the Germans?" Sir Arthur Keith
wrote that "the Briton and German represent contrasted and opposite
types of humanity" (The Graphic, Dec. 4, p. 720). He explained,
"The radical difference in the two forms leaps to the eye. In the majority
of the Briton--English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish--the hinder part of the head,
the occiput, projects prominently backwards behind the line of the neck; the
British head is long in comparison with its width" (p. 720).
Keith then pointed out that "in the vast majority of Germans," the
back of the head is "flattened"--indicating "a profound racial
difference. Even in the sixteenth century, Vesalius, who is universally
recognized as the 'father of Anatomy,' regarded the flat occiput as a German
characteristic.... He came, rather unwillingly, to the conclusion that the vast
majority of modern German people differed from the British, Dutch, Dane and
Scandinavian in head form.
"The explanation," according to Keith, "is easy. With the exodus
of the Franks to France and the Anglo-Saxons to Britain in the fifth, sixth,
seventh and eighth centuries of our era, Germany was almost denuded of her
long-headed elements in her population." So the land of Germany seems
to have been operating as a massive SIEVE--while the round-headed population
elements were retained, the long-headed elements passed through. This is
rather astounding! Could something like this have happened by chance alone? Surely
there was something more at work here!
Did any more of the Scandinavian long-headed type leave? Yes--to America! Look
at the entry on "Germany" in the Britannica: "There have
been great oscillations in the actual emigration by sea. It first exceeded
100,000 soon after the Franco-German War (1872, 126,000), and this occurred
again in the years 1880 to 1892. Germany lost during these thirteen years more
than 1,700,000 inhabitants by emigration. The total number of those who sailed
for the United States from 1820 to 1900 may be estimated at more than
4,500,000....
"The greater number of the more recent emigrants [to the U.S.] was from
the agricultural provinces of northern Germany--West Prussia, Posen,
Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Schleswig-Holstein and Hanover, and sometimes the
emigration reached 1% of the total population of these provinces. In subsequent
years the emigration of native Germans greatly decreased" (11th ed., vol.
11).
What is so special about northern Germany? Notice this reference from Ripley's Races
of Europe: "Northwestern Germany--Hanover, Schleswig-Holstein,
Westphalia--is distinctly allied to the physical type of the Swedes,
Norwegians, and Danes. All the remainder of the Empire--no, not even
excluding Prussia, east of the Elbe--is less Teutonic in type; until finally in
the essentially Alpine broadheaded populations of Baden, Wurttemburg, and
Bavaria in the south, the Teutonic race passes from view" (p. 214).
It is generally known that the northern "Low Germans" differ from the
southern "High Germans." But there were differences even among
the Low Germans.
Another source comments, "A separate study, in the case of Germany at
least would seem to indicate that those [immigrants] who went to the U.S.A.
in the 1800s were somehow different from those who stayed behind and German
officials themselves remarked on such a difference. The claim for such a
distinction is based on consideration of physical types, areas-of-origin within
Germany, religious orientation and social outlook" (Yair Davidy, The
Tribes, Russell-Davis Publishers, p. 430). It seems America's Puritan
founders were indeed right in believing that God was sifting a whole nation!
It is clear, then, that the Anglo-Saxon peoples are not Germanic--at least in
the modern sense of that term. Neither are the Teutonic peoples of Scandinavia
and the rest of Northwest Europe who sprang from the Scythians.
These people who overran the British Isles were in many respects the same as
the Celts who were already living there. Notice what Professor Huxley's Racial
Origins says: "The invasion of the Saxons, the Goths, the Danes and
the Normans changed the language of Britain, but added no new
physical element. Therefore we should not talk anymore of Celts and
Saxons, for THEY ARE ALL ONE. I never lose an opportunity of rooting up the
false idea that the Celts and Saxons are different races." Winston
Churchill was of the same opinion (History of the English-Speaking Peoples,
vol. 1, preface).
The Celtic people are certainly not German either. The modern Germans (Deutch)
represent an altogether different group of people located today in
Greater Germany--i.e. Germany, Austria, western Poland, the western Czech
Republic and the Rhineland of eastern France. We will learn the true identity
of these people later in this brochure.
From Where Did the
Celts Arise?
When did the Celts or Cimmerians begin migrating into Europe? And from where
did they come? Though they have since moved on, a large Celtic populace spent a
considerable amount of time in Spain. There they were known as the Celtiberri
or Celtiberians--thus Spain and Portugal are located on the "Iberian
Peninsula." This is quite interesting since Iberia was the name of a
region between the Black and Caspian Seas, just south of the Caucasus Mountains
and north of Armenia! Notice this from the multimedia encyclopedia, Microsoft
Encarta '95: "Iberia, ancient name for both the Iberian Peninsula
and the country lying between the Greater Caucasus and Armenia, approximately
coextensive with present-day Georgia [south of Russia]" ("Iberia,"
Microsoft Corp. and Funk and Wagnall's Corp., 1994).
This word is also the probable origin of the name, Ireland! The name Ireland
comes from Eire-land ("Eire" being what the Irish call it).
Traditionally, this name came from "Erin." The Romans called it
Hibernia or Ivernia. It sometimes appears as Iberon. But where did these names
come from?
The late Harvard professor Barry Fell wrote, "One of the ancient names of
Ireland is Ibheriu, pronounced as Iveriu, a fact that suggests
that the word is derived from a still-earlier pronunciation, Iberiu. Now
this is very interesting, for the Gaelic histories assert that the ancestors of
the Gaels came to Ireland from Iberia, the old name of Spain. Could Iberiu
be the same as Iberia, the name of the older homeland having been
transferred to the younger? Many people, including some linguists, think this
may well be the case" (America B.C.: Ancient Settlers in the New World,
1976, p. 43).
Could such Irish forebears in Spain have come from the area of Iberia just
south of the Caucasus Mountains? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (c. 891
A.D.), the primary source for the early history of England, says Southwest Asia
was at one time the home of the Celts: "The first inhabitants [of
England] were Britons [Welsh or Kymry], who came from ARMENIA, and first
peopled Britain southward" (p. 21, translated by James Ingram).
Some people argue that the compilers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle used
the word "Armenia" by mistake. They cite the fact that A History
of the English Church and People by Bede (673-735 A.D.), which was used as
one of the sources for the Chronicle, has a similar sentence using the
word "Armorica" instead--i.e. modern Brittany in northwestern France.
However, those who argue in favor of this should consider that the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle was a monumental work overseen by MANY people. Bede was just ONE
person. More than likely, it was he who made the slip by using the word
"Armorica"! Samuel Lyson's history also traces the
"Cimbri" to Armenia. And remember that Armenia was just south
of Iberia and the Caucasus!
Observe this from the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"Cimmerii... Herodotus (iv., 11-13), in his account of Scythia,
regards them as the early inhabitants of South Russia (after whom the Bosporus
Cimmerius q.v. and other places were named), driven by the Scyths
along by the Caucasus into Asia Minor, where they maintained themselves for a
century....
"Certainly it is that in the middle of the seventh century [650s] B.C.,
Asia Minor was ravaged by northern nomads (Herodotus iv., 12), one body of whom
is called in Assyrian sources Gimirrai and is represented as coming through
the Caucasus. To the north of the Euxine [Black Sea] their main body was
merged in the invading Scyths. Later writers identified them with the Cimbri
of Jutland [present-day Denmark], who were probably Teutonized Celts"
("Cimmerii," vol. 6, p. 368).
This is quite strange. Around the 650s B.C., 70 years after Israel's second
deportation in 721, a group of Scythians--evidently southeast of the
Cimmerians--were pushing some Cimmerians north through the Caucasus and
some west through Asia Minor. Yet, the Cimmerians who went north through
the Caucasus encountered more Scythians coming from the east! How was
this possible? The answer will become clear when we later learn who the
Scythians actually were.
Armenian Homeland?
Dr. Robert Owen says, "In leaving the Far East, they [the Cimmerians,
Cimbri or Kymri] must have occupied a country south of the Caucasus,
extending from the river Araxes [between the Caspian and Black Seas], to the...
Sea of Azov [north of the Black Sea], where Herodotus remarks on the many
places yet bearing the name of Kimmerian in his time" (The
Kymry, p. 11). Owen discovered "in the nomenclature of rivers and
mountains some grounds for inferring the occupation of the country east of
the Euxine Sea [Black Sea] by Celts or traces of their presence, which any
temporary irruption [forcible entry] in later times will never suffice
to explain" (p. 12).
So we see a great deal of historical evidence that the Celtic people traveled
north through the Caucasus region into eastern Europe. Dr. Owen continues, "It
is not impossible that some of the Kimmerioi, who retired from their
Asiatic home before the onset of the Scythians, took a northern
course, which the pursuers afterwards followed... from the Sea of Azov to
the shores of the Baltic" (pp. 26-27).
Thus the Cimmerians moved north, along the eastern side of the Black Sea, and
were then forced westward by the advancing Scythians--who were coming around
the north side of the Caspian Sea from the east.
When did this merger and struggle between the Cimmerians and Scythians occur?
Dr. Edwin Guest says, "Our most trustworthy authorities agree in fixing
these events in the latter part of the sixth century B.C." (Origines
Celtica, vol. 1, 1883, p. 17). He thinks that historic event occurred in
the late 500s B.C.--two centuries after the Israelites had been taken captive,
and about a century after the Assyrian Empire was destroyed (612 B.C.).
This time frame makes sense. Remember that World Book says little was
known of the Celts until the 500s B.C. Notice also: "The Celts [began] to
emerge from the anonymous mass of the non-literate peoples of Europe during the
late sixth century B.C." (Vencelais Kruta, Celts of the West,
pp. 10-11).
As the Cimmerians came up around the Black Sea, they migrated to the Crimea, north
of that sea: "Crimea [called by the Russians by the Tartar name Krym
or Crim]... a peninsula on the north side of the Black Sea.... The
earliest inhabitants... were the Celtic Cimmerians, who were expelled
by the Scythians during the seventh century B.C." ("Crimea,"
Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 7). Under Scythian pressure, these
"Celtic Cimmerians" were forced into Europe and on around the Black
Sea to its southwestern shores. There they converged with other Celts
(Cimmerians), who had been pushed westward across Asia Minor by a different
group of Scythians, and had crossed the Bosporus Strait into Thrace --
present-day European Turkey. Sharon Turner wrote, "The Kymry came from
the eastern parts of Europe, or the regions where Constantinople [Istanbul,
Turkey] now stands" (p. 32).
|
|
"The first
inhabitabts [of England] were Britons, who came from Armenia." |
The Danube River formed the northern border of Thrace. The migrating Celtic
Cimmerians followed the Danube westward, then--as we've seen--fanned out over
Europe into France, Belgium, Switzerland, northern Italy and northern Spain.
Some of them settled in the "Cimbric Chersonosus," the Jutland
Peninsula of modern Denmark (though some writers have also used this name for
the Crimea). Others moved northward into Scandinavia, while a considerable
number of them migrated further westward into Britain and Ireland.
Lysons's history summarizes these facts quite well: "The chain of evidence
seems to be complete. Appian [of Alexandria, Greek historian, 2nd century
A.D.]... says the Cimbri were Celts. Diodorus [of Sicily] says that the Cimbri
were Gauls or Celts; Gauls were Galatae... Geltae or Keltae. The names are
synonymous.... The Cymric Celts [migrated] from Armenia to Britain... it
confirms all the traditions of the Welsh, the views of Nennius [9th century
British monk and historian] and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and all
our earliest histories, and to anyone who has studied the question, seems most
convincing" (p. 27).
How and when did the Scythian fathers of the Anglo-Saxon and other
Northwest European peoples come into Europe? Madison Grant wrote, "The
Nordics [Scythians]... migrated around the northern and eastern sides of the
Caspian-Aral Sea" (p. 214). Sharon Turner says, "Herodotus, besides
the main Scythia, which he places in Europe, mentions also an Eastern or
Asiatic Scythia, beyond [east of] the Caspian [Sea] and Iaxartes
[River]" (p. 82).
But where did the Scythians come from? Remember that the name Saxon was from
"Saksun" which came from "Sakai-Suna." This branch of the
Sacae is actually mentioned in ancient history: "They seized Bactriana,
and the most fertile part of Armenia, which, from them, derived the name Sakasina;
they defeated Cyrus; and they reached the Cappodoces on the Euxine.
"This important fact of a part of Armenia having been named Sakasina,
is mentioned by Strabo... and seems to give a geographical locality to our
primeval ancestors, and to account for the Persian words that occur in the
Saxon language, as they [the Saxons] must have come into Armenia from the
northern regions of Persia" (Turner, p. 87)! So at this point
the Scythian Saxons were in the same region as the Cimmerians! What's going on
here?
The Master Key Linking
Two Great Peoples
The real master key to unlocking the mystery of why the Cimmerians and
Scythians were both coming from the same places--around the south Caspian Sea
region--is to be found in the well-known BEHISTUN ROCK INSCRIPTIONS
(also called Bisutun Inscriptions).
While exploring Persia in 1835, a British army officer, Sir Henry Rawlinson,
noticed a great rock rising about 1,700 feet above the main road from Babylon
to Media. On the face of that perpendicular rock cliff, 400 feet above the
road, Rawlinson noticed a smoothed surface with cuneiform (wedge-shaped)
engravings. Upon further investigation, Sir Henry noticed that those
inscriptions were written in three languages: Persian, Susian (Elamite
or Median) and Babylonian. These inscriptions had been engraved around 520 B.C.
at the command of Persian Emperor Darius I--or "Darius the Great"
(ruled 521-486 B.C.)--to commemorate his reign and military successes.
Rawlinson performed a great service for historical scholarship when he made
squeezes (clay impressions) of the inscriptions. For modern historians, those
trilingual cuneiform inscriptions proved to be a master key to understanding
the ancient languages of the Near East, thereby unlocking to the world the vast
treasures of Assyrian and Babylonian literature: "In 1835 the difficult and
almost inaccessible cliff was first climbed by Sir Henry Rawlinson, who copied
and deciphered the inscriptions (1835-1845), and thus completed the reading
of the old cuneiform text and laid the foundation of the science of
Assyriology" ("Behistun," Encyclopaedia Britannica,
11th ed., vol. 3).
Do the Behistun Rock Inscriptions help us in understanding our Celtic
(Cimmerian) and Anglo-Saxon (Scythian) heritage? Yes! They list 23 provinces
which then constituted the Persian Empire (c. 520 B.C.). According to the
translation by L.W. King and R.C. Thompson (Inscriptions of Darius the Great
at Behistun, British Museum, 1907), the 19th province listed, in the
Persian language, is called "Scythia" (phonetic: Saka--Rawlinson
has Sacae). It is also named "Scythia"
(phonetic: Sakka) in the Susian (Median) language. But, in the Babylonian
language, that same province is called "the land of the
Cimmerians" (phonetic: Gimiri)! The Cimmerians and
Scythians must have been of the SAME PEOPLE!
Notice the following extract from The History of Herodotus: "The
ethnic name of Gimiri first occurs in the cuneiform records of the time
of Darius Hystapses [Darius I], as the Semitic equivalent of the Arian name Saka
[Sacae = Scythians = Saxons].... The nation spoken of contained at this time
two divisions, the eastern branch, named Humurga... and the
[western branch] Tigrakkuda or 'archers,' who [shared a common
border]... with the Assyrians" (translated by G. Rawlinson, H.
Rawlinson and J.G. Wilkinson).
Here is more about these eastern and western branches of the Scythians: "A
group of Amyrgian Scythians in the time of Darius, king of Persia, were
reported as then dwelling on the Tigris [River] banks. They were led by a chief
Saku'ka and revolted against the Persian rulers. In a bilingual inscription
these Amyrgians are called Saka Humuvashka in Persian and Gimirri
Umurgah in Babylonian. Gimirri [in the Babylonian version] means
either 'Tribes' or Cimmerians or perhaps both since the Scyths and
Cimmerians were originally ONE ENTITY" (Davidy, p. 360).
Sir Henry Rawlinson was also of this opinion: "The identification of
the Persian Sacae or Scythians with the people named by the
Greeks Kimmerioi [Cimbri = Celts]... would seem highly
probable" (Proceedings of the Royal Asiatic Society, May 12,
1849, p. xxi). How about that! Incredibly, history reveals that the Celts
(Cimmerians) were merely the western branch of the wide-ranging
Scythians!
Madison Grant concurred with this conclusion, writing that the Cimmerians,
the Sacae (Saxons) and the Massagetae all sprang from the Scythians (p.
194). So these great peoples, seemingly originating in northern Mesopotamia and
in Persia, were basically the same. The Cimmerians (to the west) and the
Scythians (to the east--yet always advancing westward upon the Cimmerians) were
actually branches of the same great family!
|
Fascinating Racial
Roots! |
|
All peoples on earth today have descended from Noah's three
sons-Shem, Ham and Japheth-as recorded in Genesis 10. (NOTE: By comparing
the known geographic origins of the major racial groups with the ancient
locations of the biblically listed descendants of Noah's sons, it is possible
to determine which son of Noah fathered which major race.) Ham is the
father of the Negroids-the dark-skinned peoples who inhabited Africa,
India, and, anciently, certain eastern Mediterranean countries like Canaan. Japheth
is the father of the Mongoloids-the yellow and brown peoples of Asia and
the native Indian tribes of North, Central and South America. Many of the
olive-skinned peoples who inhabited the countries of the northern rim
of the Mediterranean Sea (e.g. Greeks) are also descendants of Japheth and
his sons. Shem is the father of the Caucasoids-the fair-skinned
blonds, red-heads and brunets who are often called the "white"
peoples. So the Anglo-Saxon-Celts must have descended from Shem. This makes
absolutely perfect sense when you realize that the very name of the
Caucasian race is derived from the CAUCASUS MOUNTAINS-the area we've been
reading so much about! |
Dating the
Emergence of the Celto-Scythians
When did the Scythian people first come on the scene? "The term
'Scythians' [Gk. Skythes] is used both to describe specific tribes
which inhabited the north and east of the Black Sea beginning in the seventh
century B.C. and as a generic word for horse-riding pastoralists
[shepherds]" ("Scythians," Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.
5). Turner confirms this: "The emigrating Scythians crossed the Araxes [in
Armenia], passed out of Asia, and invading the Cimmerians, suddenly appeared
in Europe, in the seventh century before the Christian Era [600s B.C.]" (p.
85).
Chambers Encyclopedia says, "Scythians: Greek Skuthai, Latin
Scythae, Assyrian Ashguzai... the Persians called all people like
them Saka, were the first nomadic people of which we have any real
knowledge.... Herodotus said that the Scyths came out of upper Asia crossing
the Araxes... somewhere about 700 B.C., and fell upon the Cimmerians...
so that part [of the Cimmerians] were destroyed... and part driven through the
Caucasus into regions about Armenia and Media" ("Scythians,"
vol. 12).
Many have tried to argue that the Cimmerians were north of the
Caucasus first and then migrated south through the Caucasus--later going
back north again (by this reasoning, the only way to explain the
northward migration that we definitely know transpired). Yet we see nothing
of the Celtic Cimmerians north of the Caucasus until around 500 B.C. However,
historical evidence clearly places them south of the Caucasus, in
Armenia, when the Scythians met them in about 700 B.C. And they must have been
there for at least a short while before that. So when the Cimmerians did go
north through the Caucasus, that was almost certainly their first time
being there.
What else can we learn of this time? Chambers continues, "For the
whole seventh century [600s B.C.] Scythians and Cimmerians played their part in
the confusion that reigned in western Asia during the last days of the Assyrian
empire and the resurgence of Babylon. The Scythians were mentioned in Assyrian
records first under Esarhaddon (681-669 B.C.); whereas the Cimmerians were
hostile to the Assyrians, the Scythians [at this time] seem to have been
friendly.... [The Scythians] are said to have ruled Asia 28 years, penetrating
as far as the borders of Egypt, and taking a part in the siege of Nineveh, 612
B.C. No one has satisfactorily fitted this 28 years into the chronology of
Media and Babylonia. Herodotus represented the Scyths as returning after it
into south Russia and reestablishing their dominion there. Here we may regard
them as continuously dominant from 700 B.C. till the last century B.C."
The Anchor Bible Dictionary entry on "Scythians" also mentions
Esarhaddon's reign: "The Scythians... apparently first appear in written
history in the annals of Esarhaddon, and seem to be centered at that time in
what is today Northwest Iran. According to Herodotus (1.103-6) the Scythians
ruled over all of the Near East for 28 years after entering the area from the
north; traditionally this period of rule is assigned to the seventh or sixth
century B.C.... By the third century B.C., the Scythian presence in the
Near East is restricted to the Crimea and the shores of the Black Sea. Ovid
[famous Latin poet, banished to the Black Sea for unknown reasons in 8 A.D.]
records Scythian life in the first century A.D., by which time their power is
spent; the Scythians shortly after fade from history."
The same article reveals that Scythian "grave goods [artifacts recovered
by archaeologists from tombs] demonstrate economic interaction with the local
settled populations, in the seventh and sixth centuries with Urartians
[people of Ararat = Armenians] and other northeast groups and in the fifth
and fourth centuries with Greeks.... Although the Scythians primarily lived
in tents [as wanderers among the nations!], there is some
evidence in the North Steppe of settlements dating to the seventh or
sixth century B.C."
Many scholars have believed that the Scythians originated in the Russian
Steppes and LATER moved south around both sides of the Caspian Sea. In
fact, the very opposite is true! Archaeologists have examined a great number of
graves in the Steppes and have confirmed that Scythian culture in that area
didn't begin until the end of the seventh century B.C. (From the Lands of
the Scythians: Ancient Treasures from the Museums of the U.S.S.R. 3000 B.C.-100
B.C., Metropolitan Museum of Art and Los Angeles Museum of Art, p. 99).
There is NO archaeological evidence showing that Scythians were in south Russia
prior to the late 600s B.C.--certainly not thousands of years prior, as
some modern scholars have claimed! Yet there is much evidence of
Scythians around the southern Caspian area well before
600--and even back to 700 when they clashed with the Cimmerians in Armenia!
Herodotus realized that these people weren't originally from there. So
he picked another place of origin--to the north. Yet, as we've just seen, that
can't be! Where did they come from then? Earlier, we read Sharon Turner's
conclusion that these fathers of the Saxons must have come from southeast of
Armenia--from PERSIA. Thus the Scythians must have been in Persia, south of the
Caspian, even shortly before 700 B.C. And, in fact, Turner informs us
that Homer dated the rise of these people to that time.
IMPORTANT NOTE: We have established that the
emergence of the Cimmerians (Celts) in Armenia and their Scythian (Saxon)
brothers in Persia, south of the Caspian Sea, occurred in the 700s B.C. Yet
those places were not their original cradles. This is a very significant fact
of history.
Language Says It All!
Can we derive any clues about the origins of the Celts or Scythians based on
their languages or traditions? It may come as a surprise to learn that Encyclopaedia
Britannica reports, "For many centuries the affinities of the Celtic
languages were the subject of great dispute. The languages were in turn
regarded as descended from Hebrew, Teutonic and Scythian"
("Celt," 11th ed., vol. 5). "Hebrew"? How could that
be possible?
Samuel Lysons says, "Thus I propose to show in the course of these pages,
when we come to the relics of British worship remaining in this country... the
remarkable similarity between those names and the Hebrew and Chaldee languages.
The same theory holds good in the names of some of our old British
families" (p. 21). Continuing, he writes, "Now whatever may be the
historical value of the Welsh poems, it is undoubted that Taliesin [renowned
6th century Welsh poet] in his Angar Cyfyndawd, says that his lore had been
'declared in Hebrew, in Hebraic'" (p. 22).
Thus, Lysons argued that the Celtic tongue was closely related to the
Hebrew language. "Yet this we gather from the names attaching to the
British monuments... that there is a strong affinity between these British
names and that language of which Hebrew is either the original or
one of its earliest off-shoots; and that therefore Hebrew, Chaldee, or some
other very near cognate, must have been the language of the first inhabitants
[the Celts or Kymry] of this island" (p. 83). Isn't that amazing?
But Lysons isn't the only one who sees a kinship between the ancient Celtic
tongue spoken by the Kymry and the Hebrew language. Robert Owen writes,
"Most Welsh scholars have employed their time on the production of grammars
and dictionaries. The Hebrew learning of Dr. John Davies of Mallwyd seems to
have influenced his countrymen to accept the Puritan atavism
[resemblance to remote ancestors] of referring Welsh to the language of
Moses [Hebrew] as its fountain" (p. vi).
What about the Scythians? Is their language also related somehow? The Scyths
spoke Scythiac, which is classified thus: "Scythiac... Scythian
[language]... There is a strong similarity between the Hebrew and the
Scythian languages" ("Scythiac," New English Dictionary
on Historical Principles, 1971, vol. 8). Then why isn't English--our
language through the Anglo-Saxons--like Hebrew? Undoubtedly, as the Scythians
were "sifted through" the true German peoples, they must have adopted
much of the early Germanic language--from which modern English is descended.
Still, it is truly remarkable that the Celtic and Scythian languages were both
tied to Hebrew! Isn't it becoming more and more clear who these people were?
|
Hard, Physical
Evidence! |
|
Is there any archaeological evidence of Israelites migrating up
through the Caucasus and around the northern side of the Black Sea? Yes! I Jehuda ben Mose ha-Nagolon of the East
country, ben Jehuda ha-Gibbor of the tribe of Naphtali, of the
generation Schillem, who went into the exile with the exiles, who were driven
away with Hosea, the king of Israel, together with the tribes of Simeon
and Dan and some of the generations of the other tribes of Israel,
which (all) were led into exile by the enemy Shalmanesser from Schomron
[Samaria] and their cities to Chalach [Halah], that is, Backack and to Chabar
[Habor], that is, Chabul and to Hara, that is, Herat, and to Gosan [Gozan],
the cities of the exiled tribes of Reuben, Gad and the half of Manasseh,
which Pilneser [Tiglath-Pileser] drove into exile and settled there (and
from there they scattered themselves over the whole land of the East as far
as Sinim)--when I returned from wandering in the land of their exile and from
journeying in the dwelling places of the descendants of their generations in their
resting places of the Land of Krim [the Crimea].
|
In his authoritative 1913
work, Scythians and Greeks, Ellis H. Minns wrote of the
"Scythians.... Next in importance to their horses came the cattle used for
drawing their great waggons.... They had sheep as well, for mutton bones are
found in cauldrons in the tombs, as for example at Kul Oba. They made no use
of pigs either in sacrifice or any other way.... [and] regarded swine as
tabu" (p. 49). Where did this prohibition against eating pork
originate? Could it have been from the Hebrew Bible? Leviticus 11:7-8 says,
"And the swine... is unclean to you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and
their carcasses you shall not touch" (cf. Deut. 14:8). As is commonly
known, the Orthodox Jews of today still strictly observe this dietary
principle.
Robert Owen relates another interesting detail: "Some of their Celtic
traditions resemble Semitic records of antediluvian patriarchs" (p.
33). This historian then shows that, like the Israelites of old (2 Kings
21:1-5), the ancient Britons worshipped "Baal, the sun, and the hosts of
heaven.... Our British ancestors were devoted to that kind of worship which
they brought with them from the East, whence they came at a very early period,
even close upon the Patriarchal times of Holy Writ" (pp. 93-94).
Sharon Turner noted the following remarkable practice of the ancient Britons: "The
Kimbri swore by a brazen bull, which they carried with them" (p. 34).
This fact is a grim reminder of the idolatrous "calf worship" which
Jeroboam (first king of the Ten Tribes of Israel) introduced into the Northern
Kingdom. Where, then, is all of this leading us?
An Inescapable
Conclusion!
Remember from chapter one that the northern Ten Tribes of Israel had been
carried away in two separate captivities. The first one, which took place
around 734-732 B.C., was the huge "Galilean Captivity," in
which about three-fourths of the Northern Kingdom was carried away, including
the Israelite tribes dwelling on the EAST side of the Jordan River.
This latter aspect of the first deportation is described in 1 Chronicles 5:26:
"So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, that
is, Tiglath-Pileser.... He carried the Reubenites, the Gadites,
and the half-tribe of Manasseh into captivity. He took them to Halah,
Habor, Hara, and the river of Gozan to this day." These places,
according to The Macmillan Bible Atlas, were located in Assyria in
northern Mesopotamia (Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, pp. 96-97). These
locations were in the immediate vicinity of Armenia!
The second deportation of Israel occurred with the fall of Samaria, following a
three-year siege. This captivity of the rest of the Northern Kingdom--the small
"rump state" left around the capital city--is described in 2 Kings
17:5-6: "Now the king of Assyria went throughout all the land, and went up
to Samaria and besieged it for three years. In the ninth year of Hoshea [c.
721 B.C.], the king of Assyria took Samaria and carried Israel away to
Assyria, and placed them in Halah and by the Habor, the River of Gozan,
and in the cities of the Medes."
How are we to understand this verse? Were those of the second captivity taken
to the same places as those in the first captivity--the only additional
destination being the "the cities of the Medes," i.e. ancient Media,
the territory south of the Caspian Sea? Notice this important missing detail
provided by the Jewish historian, Josephus: "The king of Assyria...
besieged Samaria three years and quite demolished the government of the
Israelites, and transplanted all the people into Media and Persia"
(Antiquities, bk. 9, chap. 14, sec. 1). So the vast majority of
the people in the second captivity were taken to the lands south of the Caspian
Sea!
What is the significance of these locations and the time frame of Israel's
Assyrian captivities? If you have kept in mind the important note mentioned
earlier in this chapter, you may have reached a startling, yet inescapable,
conclusion by this point!
The closely-related Cimmerians (Celts) and Scythians came from two different
areas, of Armenia and Persia, which weren't their original homelands. These are
the very same places that the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel were taken to as
captives in two different deportations! The Celto-Scythian people came on the
scene at the exact same time the Israelites were taken into captivity! Who
cannot now help but see? This is simple logic: SAME TIME + SAME PLACES = SAME
PEOPLE!
To see this even more clearly, did you know that the word
"Scythian" is in your Bible? It IS--but only once. It occurs in Colossians
3:11, in which the Apostle Paul says that, within God's Church, physical status
does not matter: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor
uncircumcised, barbarian [nor] Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and
in all." The missing "nor" here was provided in the same way
that the New King James Version and other Bible translations provide the
missing "nor" between "slave" and "free."
Each of the four pairs mentioned here contain two contrasted types of people.
The first two clearly contrast Gentiles and Israelites. Undoubtedly the same is
true for "barbarian" (Gentile) and "Scythian" (Israelite).
In any case, they are viewed as opposites. Scythians are looked upon here as not
being barbarians--i.e. not Gentiles. God's Word, then, supports this
conclusion!
|
|
Israelite Migrations
to New Lands! |
|
|
|
Corroborative
Evidence
Now let's look at the apocryphal book of 2 Esdras--which claims to be a series
of apocalyptic visions to Ezra the Scribe. Though it cannot be trusted as
Scripture, it can nevertheless give us a historical perspective.
Zondervan Publishers' New Revised Standard Version notes that the bulk of this
book was probably written at the end of the first century A.D.
Notice the following passage: "And as for your seeing him gather to
himself another multitude that was peaceable, these are the nine tribes
[footnote: Other Latin manuscripts say "ten" and the Armenian says
"nine and a half"] that were taken away from their own land into
exile in the days of King Hoshea, whom Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians, made
captives; he took them across the river [Euphrates], and they were taken
into another land" (13:39-40 NRSV). Perhaps the missing tribe here, if
there was one, was Dan since, as we saw in chapter two, many Danites probably
"leapt" west from the Promised Land (Deut. 33:22) before and during
the Assyrian invasions. Though, undoubtedly, there were still a number of
Danites who went into captivity with the rest of their brothers of the Northern
Kingdom.
Look at what happened next to the Israelites in Assyrian captivity: "But
they formed this plan for themselves, that they would leave the multitude of
the nations and go to a more distant region, where no human beings had ever
lived, so that there at least they might keep their statutes that they had not
kept in their own land. And they went in by the narrow passages of the
Euphrates river [undoubtedly the mountain passages north of Lake Van from
the Euphrates to the Araxes Rivers].... Through that region there was a long
way to go, a journey of a year and a half; and that country is called
Arzareth" (2 Esdras 13:41-43, 45 NRSV).
The Euphrates-Araxes passages just mentioned would take them NORTH toward the
Caucasus Mountains. What about Arzareth--or Arsareth, as it is often
spelled? It has traditionally been identified with the region of the Sareth
or Siret River--which flows south along the east side of the Carpathian
Mountains in eastern Romania until it meets the Danube just before flowing east
into the Black Sea. (Remember that it took a "year and a half" to get
there from south of the Caucasus.) Incredible! This migration pattern
from south of the Caucasus, moving northwest around the north side of the Black
Sea until entering Eastern Europe was exactly the same path we have already
established for the Cimmerians! Clearly, this is more than freak
happenstance, isn't it?
Was it mere coincidence that the Celtic and Scythian languages both had
strong linguistic roots in Hebrew? Was it through unrelated circumstances
that the Scythians and Israelites both considered pork taboo? Was it insignificant
that the Celts and Scythians were white (Caucasian) people who must have
descended from Shem--just like the Israelites? The parallels are manifold.
There can be NO DOUBT--WE HAVE FOUND THE LOST TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL! They are
the Northwest Europeans who have descended from the Celts and Scythians! Isn't
this incredible? God performed a great miracle by preserving the Israelites as
a people as He promised (Amos 9:9).
This is not a new idea. Notice what Encarta '95 says: "The
so-called Anglo-Israelite theory, which gained considerable credence in the 17th
century, is that the Ten Tribes were the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxon
peoples; many Jews were admitted into England about that time based on the
strength of the theory" ("Lost Tribes"). Yet it is more than
just a theory! The historical proof is simply overwhelming that the
Celto-Scythians were none other than the dispossessed Israelites. This is not
to say that every Celt or Scythian was an Israelite. But the vast majority of
them undoubtedly were!
Yet, the greatest and, by far, the strongest proof that our Northwest
European heritage can be traced back to ancient Israel lies in the pages of the
Holy Bible--in its record of prophecies and God's promises concerning national
greatness. Only among the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples have the tremendous
birthright blessings promised to Abraham's descendants been realized. And it is
through the Bible that we are able to identify the sons of Joseph who
have specifically received the birthright--America and the
British-descended nations.
What about the rest of the Lost Tribes? Though not recipients of the
birthright promise of dominance, nevertheless, as God's chosen people also,
they have been greatly blessed with material prosperity. There is some debate
about which of these tribes form which Northwest European nations today. And,
for lack of space, we are not able here to explore all the possible reasons for
thinking that a particular nation may represent a specific tribe. Still, it can
be stated with a fair amount of certainty that these other tribes may be found
in France, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway,
Sweden, Finland and Iceland.
God Almighty kept His promise! HE REALLY KEPT IT! What tremendous trust and
faith in God this should inspire in us. Here is certain, living proof of a REAL
GOD! And this God--the Lord OUR God, the God of OUR FATHERS, ABRAHAM,
ISAAC, JACOB AND JOSEPH--is not disinterested, far removed or
uninvolved. Our God is an intimately INVOLVED God--the God who keeps
promises and who answers prayers! Our Father Abraham trusted in God
completely. And, for that, we, his descendants as well as the non-Israelites
who dwell in our lands have been lifted to the heights of the world, blessed as
no other peoples have ever been. We should fall on our knees before God in
continual thanks for what he has done for us--for these awesome blessings that
we are so unworthy of!
In the next chapter, we will examine how God specifically fulfilled the
birthright promises. It is truly an awe-inspiring story--filled with
amazing evidence of miraculous, divine intervention!
|
I SRAEL'S P OST- C APTIVITY N AMES How Did the Israelites Became Known as |
The Land of the House of Omri
Etymology in Celtic Names
"In Isaac Your Seed
Shall Be Called"!
|