- Christogenea Saturdays
TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 47
In our last presentation in this series, we discussed the apparent fulfillment of the blessings upon the tribes of Dan, Asher, Zebulun, Naphtali in relation to the blessings which the tribes had received from Jacob and Moses. We had already discussed Judah and Levi. Now we shall discuss the sons of Joseph, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin. We cannot illustrate the fulfillment of all of the blessings for every one of the twelve tribes, and if we tried we would be forced into much conjecture. Some of the blessings have interpretations which may be considered subjective, and their fulfillment may be difficult to notice. But we can make the assertion that if we see plain fulfillments for some aspects of the blessings for at least many of the tribes, then we can be certain that all of the blessings have been realized, and shall continue to be realized as our history progresses.
Before we proceed, we must warn against trying to identify all of the tribes of ancient Israel with modern tribes or nations of Europe today solely by the nature of certain features of their blessings. For that reason, we will not discuss every tribe in relation to these blessings. In our last podcast, we mentioned the blessings of Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali in relation to the history of the Phoenicians, but other tribes may well have been blessed through that same history. For example, Moses had blessed Zebulun and Issachar together and said “they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and of treasures hid in the sand.” So even though there is little evidence convincing us to connect Issachar to the Phoenicians in history or in Scripture, it is apparent that arguments can be made for such a connection in Scripture.
But the blessing of Jacob for Issachar which is in Genesis chapter 49 says that “14 Issachar is a strong ass couching down between two burdens: 15 And he saw that rest was good, and the land that it was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant unto tribute.” If this is interpreted to have been fulfilled in ancient Palestine, Issachar was never under tribute during the period of the Kingdom, unless all of Israel was under tribute, and that would render the blessing meaningless as it refers to something which affected all Israel. We would prefer to look for a fulfillment that is peculiar to Issachar apart from the rest of Israel.
But how can we really see the fulfillment of such a prophecy? At diverse times, many European tribes were under tribute to others, sometimes in ways which are not so obvious. Many of the tribes of Europe were subjects of Rome, so they were tributaries to Rome. According to certain ancient histories, the Goths, Alans and other Germanic tribes were tributaries to the Huns for nearly a hundred years in the 4th and 5th centuries. Later, during the time of the Holy Roman empire, most of Europe was under the control of certain Germanic kings and their families, so most European nations were under tribute to those kings. So, for example, the longest-running dynasty which ruled the empire over its 1,000-year duration was the House of Habsburg, and in reality, every non-Austrian nation was under a form of tribute to the Habsburgs for the 300 years during which they had ruled the empire. Yet from any of this history it is not plausible to identify Issachar or the other tribes brought into the captivities with any particular European tribe or nation.
Furthermore, it must be said that last week we really only scratched the surface of the history of the ancient Phoenicians. But in weeks prior and in relation to other blessings, we mentioned Miletus in Caria, Cilicia, and the Phoenician settlements and later migrations from those places westward into Ireland and Britain. Understanding that Phoenicians were Israelites is the single greatest step, in my opinion, to understanding how all the covenants and promises of God were fulfilled in antiquity as well as in modern times. Now, we shall try to make a similar example of Ephraim and Manasseh.
60) A Great Nation and a Company of Nations
While they were organized under one government, by the time of the numbering on the plains of Moab, each of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel were already nations in their own right. This is seen in Deuteronomy chapter 32, in the Song of Moses, where we read: “43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.” If we actually believed the Scripture, then every reference to nations which have the favor of God from this point forward should be understood to refer to these nations, the nations of Israel Some Bible versions have “corrected” this verse from the Septuagint, and the traditional Septuagint manuscripts have “O ye heavens” rather than “O ye nations”. However the traditional reading in the Masoretic Text is supported both by Paul of Tarsus, who cites the passage in Romans 15:10, and in a Greek version of Deuteronomy labelled 4QDeutq which was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
So Paul’s citation of Deuteronomy 32:43 in Romans 15:10 has nations rather than heavens, and Paul must have also been familiar with at least most of the text of the verse as it appears in the Septuagint, as he cited another portion of it which is wanting in the Masoretic Text, in Hebrews 1:6. We should accept the version of Deuteronomy 32:43 which was accepted and quoted by Paul of Tarsus, as it is also found in the Greek version of the Dead Sea Scrolls [explained in a footnote found on page 193 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich]. Where Moses had uttered those words, he was speaking within the context of the vengeance of God against all of the ancient enemies of the children of Israel. So the nations to which he referred were not non-Israelite nations, but rather, they were the nations of the people of God, the future nations which the children of Israel were promised to become.
However nations as groups of people descended from the same patriarch are one thing, and countries or regions under a common government, as we perceive the artificial meaning of the word nation today, are another. While Abraham was promised that his descendants would become many nations, and while that promise was ultimately inherited by Jacob and its fulfillment became evident in the twelve tribes of his children, there is no promise that those twelve tribes would ever occupy twelve autonomous countries each be represented by their own government and with each of them containing citizens exclusively from one of those tribes.
Likewise, while it is evident from the Revelation of Yahshua Christ and other prophecies that all of the nations of Israel, all twelve tribes, would indeed survive through the course of history, on the other hand there is no promise of nationhood to any of the tribes found in the blessings of Jacob or Moses, except for Ephraim and Manasseh. So in Genesis chapter 48, where Jacob blessed the younger beyond the elder, we read: “19… I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.”
With all of this it should become evident that it is folly to do as earlier Identity Christians had done, to associate each nation of Europe with one peculiar tribe of Israel. But it is also evident in the Revelation of Yahshua Christ that the children of Israel in later history would consist of nations of people with different tongues, which refutes a notion upheld by early British Israel adherents that the whole of all twelve tribes are found in England. This is found in Revelation chapter 7 where there is a sealing of each of the tribes, and then there is mention of an innumerable multitude where we read: “9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”
Now there might be a question concerning the identity of that innumerable multitude, but it should not be a question at all, as we read that same thing later in the chapter where it says: “13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? [So here an elder of Israel is depicted as asking from where the innumerable multitude had come.] 14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” But throughout the Old Testament, only the children of Israel were prophesied to undergo tribulation, and for that same reason, only the children of Israel were promised to be cleansed in Christ, and this verse should be cross-referenced with Jeremiah 30:11 and Jeremiah 33:7-8.
We read in in Jeremiah 30:11: “11 For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.” Then in Jeremiah 33:7-8: “7 And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first. 8 And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.” So Revelation chapter 7 illustrates the ultimate fulfillment in Christ of these promises which are found in Jeremiah and elsewhere.
So the point is that of the tribes of Israel, Ephraim and Manasseh were distinguished, but that in the last days the children of Israel would be found in many different nations, speaking many different languages. However with all certainty, all of those nations would be of the same general race, which happens to be the White race. As we have illustrated throughout this series of discussions, if one Israelite nation can be demonstrated to have been White, then according to the Word of Scripture, they all must be White.
The beginning of the fulfillment of the blessings for Ephraim must have been found in the divided kingdom, which was first ruled over by Jeroboam the son of Nebat. He is called an Ephrathite, which in Scripture has either one of two meanings. It could refer to the ancient name of Bethlehem in Judah, so it was also given as an appellation to David, or it could refer to a descendant of Ephraim. Since Jeroboam lived in Zereda, a town of the tribe of Manasseh, he was certainly a descendant of Ephraim. He was succeeded by his own son, Nadab. So Ephraim ultimately became the leading tribe of Israel in the divided kingdom. But the next king, Baasha, and his son Elah after him, were of the tribe of Issachar. After them, there is no mention of the specific tribe to which any of the other kings of Israel had belonged, although a few can be assumed or conjectured.
However in the books of the prophets, especially throughout Isaiah and Hosea, but also in Jeremiah chapter 31, Ezekiel chapter 37 in the prophecy of the two sticks, and in Zechariah chapters 9 and 10, the name of Ephraim became synonymous with the northern tribes of Israel, while Judah in that same sense had included the tribe of Benjamin. So in many prophecies, Israel is referred to as Ephraim, even if those prophecies seem to have included the people of Judah who were taken along into captivity by the Assyrians.
So, as for Ephraim and Manasseh outside of Palestine, the first known settlement is that of the Dorians who became “Greek”. When Homer wrote about the period of the Trojan War, in his Iliad he never mentioned Dorians as he described all of the tribes of the Greeks, and the tribes of Europe and Anatolia which were known to the Greeks. Rather, in his later Odyssey, Homer only mentioned the presence of Dorians on the island of Crete. So in Book 19 of the Odyssey Homer put these words into the mouth of his title character, as it is in the A. T. Murray translation which was published in the Loeb Classical Library: “There is a land called Crete, in the midst of the wine-dark sea, a fair, rich land, begirt with water, and therein are many men, past counting, and ninety cities. They have not all the same speech, but their tongues are mixed. There dwell Achaeans, there great-hearted native Cretans, there Cydonians, and Dorians of waving plumes, and goodly Pelasgians.”
As it is explained in Greek literature describing later periods, a couple of generations after the Trojan War the sons of Heracles were driven from the Peloponnese. So in revenge, the Heraclidae, as they were called, left and some time after they returned with the Dorians, who then invaded the Peloponnese by sea, and conquering it either drove off, destroyed or enslaved the Danaans. Heracles was a Phoenician, closely related to the Tyrians Cadmus and Europa, and therefore we should be able to find the meaning of his name in the language of the Phoenicians, which was Hebrew. This myth of the Heraclidae is, in my opinion, a fable which represents a greater truth, as rakal is a Hebrew verb means to go about, and with the definite article, ha rakal in Hebrew can mean the explorer, or even the merchant [for example, see Ezekiel 27:3], and ha rakalim is the plural form of the word (see Strong’s #’s 7402, 7403, 7404). In later Greek myth, Heracles the Phoenician was known for his great explorations, so he certainly was one who would go about. Perhaps the legend represents the exploits of the Phoenicians, and it is they who had encouraged the Dorians to invade the Peloponnese. That may be conjecture, but it is my theory.
All of the popular and academic theories concerning the origination of the Dorians are conjecture, and are not supported by ancient witnesses. Because of the presence of Dorian cities in the north of Greece in his own time, even the 5th century Greek historian Thucydides had thought that the Dorians came to the Peloponnese from the north, but even that is conjecture. Rather, the Dorians are called by that name because they had come from Dor in Palestine, an Israelite city in the land of Manasseh. To substantiate this, we have in the Book of 1 Maccabees, as well as in Book 12 of the Antiquities of the Judaeans by Flavius Josephus, a letter from a Spartan king to the high priest of Jerusalem. Here is the text of the letter, probably written not long after 170 BC, as it is recorded in Whiston’s translation of Josephus: “226 Areus, king of the Lacedemonians, to Onias, sends greetings. We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that both the [Judeans] and the Lacedemonians are of the same family, and are derived from the kindred of Abraham. It is but just, therefore, that you, who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concerns as you please. 227 We will also do the same thing, and esteem your concerns as our own, and will look upon our concerns as in common with yours. Demotoles, who brings you this letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is four square; and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws.” Ancient Sparta was the chief city of the Dorians of Lacedemon, a district in the southeast portion of the Peloponnese, although originally it was a Danaan city. It would be incredible, if it were true that the Judaeans were actually Jews, for the mighty and noble Spartans to associate themselves in this manner, but the truth is that the Israelites were White, not Jews, and therefore the Spartans had no reservations in associating themselves with Israelites.
While the Greek Dorians were indeed a great nation, they did not persevere and the Greeks of today are not Dorians, unless there is a small remnant which may have survived. So while the ancient Dorians may have been one fulfillment of the blessings to Ephraim and Manasseh, it was not the ultimate fulfillment. This too is evident, that all of these blessings may have had different fulfillments in different ages of history.
The Israelites taken in the Assyrian captivity were ostensibly from every tribe of Israel. Even some of the tribe of Dan went into Assyrian captivity, which we see in Judges chapter 18 (18:30), in an interpolation which shows that the Book of Judges was also redacted by scribes of the second temple period. As a digression, this is something which older Christian Identity writers had missed, and which even I had taken for granted was true when I read Comparet and others claim that Dan did not go into Assyrian captivity.
The Hebrew word egel (Strong’s # 5695, 96) means calf, but also according to Gesenius, in either form it is also a steer or a heifer. This, in my opinion, is the source of the word Angle, one of the more powerful Germanic tribes of northern Europe and the tribe for which England was named, as well as many towns and places in Germany. The word also seems to be the source of the term angus, which describes a breed of cattle. So in Deuteronomy chapter 33 we read of Joseph in the blessings of Moses that “his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.” herefore, to identify the fulfillment of the blessings which Jacob had imparted to Joseph in addition to the latter blessings upon all twelve sons, we have to identify a people descended from Israel who became not only a great nation, as perhaps the Spartans or the Romans once were, but also a company of nations which became spread out to the ends of the earth.
So returning to a discussion of England, the first British, as we know the British, seem to have been the Phoenician miners of tin in Cornwall. Whether they were preceded by Japhethites or others can only be imagined or conjectured from archaeological findings. Very often, predecessors are not ancestors, a common mistake made by archaeologists and other academics. With a definite history of successive waves of immigration from elsewhere, 3,000 or 10,000-year-old human remains found in Britain are not the ancestors of the British. A British writer, E. O. Gordon, once argued for a Trojan presence in Britain based on thin archaeological evidence, but that I would one day like to revisit, as I have not read his book since 1997 or 1998. Clearly, the account of Brutus the Trojan found in the Aeneid of Virgil seems to be political propaganda justifying the failed attempt of Julius Caesar to conquer the island, while the Romans were successful under Claudius 90 years later.
After the Phoenicians, the Cymry invaded Britain perhaps some time around 400 BC, as the Kimmerians and other tribes of Scythians later known to the Greeks as Galatae and to the Romans as Gauls or Germans had migrated from Asia through the Danube River Valley and then into Gaul, northern Italy and the Rhineland. Concerning their invasion of Rome around 390 BC, the Roman historian Livy referred to them as a strange new race. They were previously unknown to the Romans ostensibly because they were newly arrived from the east. The name Cymry certainly seems to be a shortened form of the Greek word Kimmeroi, the Latin Cimmerians.
During the first wave of the migrations of Scythians from Asia into Europe, when the Greeks had first encountered them they learned their identity when the Assyrian language was the lingua franca of the East, with which the Greeks were also familiar. So the Greeks called them Kimmeroi after the Assyrian word Khumri, their form of the name of the Israelite king Omri after which they had called the Israelties. Later, in the Babylonian and Persian periods, the Greeks called subsequent migrations of the same people by the name Sakae, after the Persian name for the Scythians, once Aramaic became the lingua franca of the East, supplanting Akkadian. They also called them Scythians, which was apparently a name they learned from the tribes themselves, and even later they called them Galatae, a word which first appears in literature in the 4th century BC. In my opinion, the name Galatae seems to have come from the Greek word for milk, as Homer had mocked them for being milk drinkers. Interestingly, the word gaulos in Latin is a bucket.
The names of the Kimmeroi, Sakae and Scythians can be linked together in multilingual Assyrian, Aramaic and Persian inscriptions, where it is indisputable that these terms all refer to the same people. While on modern maps “Scythia” is pictured north of the Caspian Sea, that is a misrepresentation. Among both ancient Greek writers and in Medieval times, Scythia stretched into Europe and as far as what we know as the eastern portions of modern Germany (Classical Records and German Origins, Part Three). From the time of Tacitus, who referred to them as Caledonians, the Picts were known to have crossed over to Britain from Germany. To describe that same thing, the 8th century English church historian Bede used the term Scythia (E.H. 1.1), as did other medieval writers.
The 8th century British historian Nennius described the Anglo-Saxon invasion of the island as coming from Scythia, where he wrote in part: “37. But Hengist, in whom united craft and penetration, perceiving he had to act with an ignorant king, and a fluctuating people, incapable of opposing much resistance, replied to Vortigern, "We are, indeed, few in number; but, if you will give us leave, we will send to our country for an additional number of forces, with whom we will fight for you and your subjects." Vortigern assenting to this proposal, messengers were despatched to Scythia, where selecting a number of warlike troops, they returned with sixteen vessels, bringing with them the beautiful daughter of Hengist.” So Germany was considered to be Scythia by medieval British writers.
Points of discussion:
Of the Angles and Saxons, many stayed behind and helped develop modern Germany while a significant number of others migrated into Britain and, according to Bede, lived alongside the earlier British.
A great nation and a company of nations: Ephraim and Manasseh. Which is Britain and which is America? That might be debatable, although traditionally Identity Christians perceive England to be Ephraim and Manasseh the original colonial Americans. We shall continue at this point in our next presentation.