ethnography does not confirm in any way the identification of the Irish with a Semitic people; while the English can be traced back to the Scandinavians of whom there is no trace in Mesopotamia at any period of history. English is a branch of the Aryan stock of languages, and has no connection with Hebrew” (Vol. 1, 1901). Historian George Rawlinson de clared in connection with Hine’s Identifications tha t they could have no effect -on those familiar with the absolute and entire di versity in language, phys i ca l type, religious opinions, manners and customs, between the Israel ites and the various races from whom the English can be shown to be historically descended. Among Anglo-Israelism’s nu merous vagaries in the one which has to do with the coronation stone of England. I t is claimed that this was the very stone upon which Jacob rested his head a t Bethel. Since he is pictured by Anglo-Israelism as wa n d e r i n g through many lands, the sect states that after carrying it for years, he bequeathed it to his sons. I t eventually got into Jere miah’s hands, who took it to Ire land. Later it reached Scotland whence it arrived in England and served as the “coronation stone” for British kings and queens from William the Conqueror down. The Irish “branch of the Danites” was given credit for its preservation! A n g l o - I s r a e l i t e Kinnear ex plained : “It has always been known by the London populace as Jacob’s Pillow, the stone which was always kept in the temple up to the time of the Babylonian cap tivity of the Jews and Benjamin” (Impending Judgments in the Earth); and Col. McKendrick claimed: “The British coronation chair built around Jacob’s stone which the Bible refers to as the throne of God (i.e., set up by God), establishes the throne of England and connects it with Coronation Stone, Lions, Unicorns and Eagles
their identity as they moved from land to land, giving their names to the cities they founded and the rivers they crossed. The Language Debacle In all seriousness, Anglo-Israel- ites state that the tribe of Dan gave its name to the DANube, DarDANelles, DANmar k , and DANelagh. Because brith in He brew means covenant, Britain means covenant-law and a Brit ish (Brithish) person becomes covenant-man. Dr. David Baron, the great Hebrew scholar, said of this misuse of words that the only characterization it deserved was childish. Another Hebrew Profes sor stated: “Anyone claiming cor respondence between the Hebrew term Isaac’s son and Saxon is woefully ignorant of the Hebrew. Isaac in Hebrew is Yitshok, son is ben, so that Isaac’s son is Ben Yitshok.” Other Anglo-Israelite attempts to force the Hebrew words into the English are: from bar, son, bairn; peri, fruit, berry; quiton, garment, kitten; kol, voice, call; rosh, head, rush; esh, fire, yes. This is not even translitera tion! Professor U. H. Parker stat ed: “As a matter of fact, there are hardly more than two dozen words, exclusive of Bible names, in the English vocabulary, which can be traced to Hebrew roots. Nearly everyone of the Hebrew words we do have came to us via the Greeks.” The Jewish Encyclopedia has this to say: “Altogether, by the application of w i l d guesswork about historical origins and phil ological analogies, and by a slav ishly literal interpretation of se lected phases of prophecy, a case was made out for the identifica tion of the British race with the lost ten tribes of Israel. The whole theory rests upon an identification of the word isles in the English version of the Bible, unjustified by modem philology, which iden tifies the original word with coasts or distant lands without any implication of their being surrounded by the sea. Modem
as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were bom, not of blood, (even if English, Irish, Scottish, or Welsh!) nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (1:12-13). I say this as an Australian-born, naturalized American, of British parents, who has been saved by the matchless grace of God “not of works, lest any man should boast.” Israel versus the Jews The Anglo-Israelites teach that Judah and Israel are not identi cal ; that there were no Jews until about two hundred years after David. If the descendants of Ja cob were not Jews when they en tered the land of promise, what made them Jews centuries later? The Anglo-Israelites claim that Jesus was not a Jew and that David was not a Jew, but both were from the lineage of Judah (Rom. 9:1-4; Matt. 27:11—Jesus in His human descent f r om Mary). The Anglo-Israelites in sist that only the Jews are descen dants of Judah, and that this was the only tribe in Palestine at the time of the crucifixion. Therefore the “lost ten tribes” — Israel — had no part in the death of the Son of God at Calvary. All the promises to Israel have been ap propriated and all the curses passed over to “the Jews.” In propounding a history to fit their theory, the leaders of the sect de clare that with the first captivity, the members of the ten tribes of Israel — the Northern Kingdom — were carried into the valley of the great river of the Assyrians. Later a second expedition made captives the Southern Kingdom, or Judah. From this point on, a fable out of the wildest imagin ings is woven which eventually turns into a history of the Anglo- Saxon peoples, now become Brit- ish-Israel. The fiction has the Jews returning to Palestine and the ten tribes of Israel regaining their freedom and preserving
THE KING'S BUSINESS
30
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker