There is still one other name by which a portion of the Israelites were known after they left the Promised Land. This is a name which connects them directly with one of the tribes of Israel. Bilhah, the handmaid of Rachel, one of Jacob's two wives, bare unto Jacob two sons, Dan and Naphtali (Gen. 35:25). The meaning of "Dan" in Hebrew is "Judge."
Dan shall judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel. Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward. I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord (Gen. 49:16-18).
Notice three points about these verses. First, Dan was to judge his people. This is definitely being fulfilled today. Many of the people of the tribe of Dan are scattered in the British Commonwealth, America and other nations, serving as policemen, as judges, and as priestsall in a capacity of judging! Secondly, Dan was to be "a serpent by the way," i.e. just as a serpent leaves a trail or a path in the sand or dirt over which it crawls, so was Dan to leave his mark or name behind him wherever he went. Thirdly, Dan would have to wait for his salvation (v.18). If you will check Revelation 7:5-8, you will notice that the only tribe of Israel which is not mentioned is that of Dan. At the time of the Second Coming of Christ, as the Messiah of Israel and the Saviour of the whole world, Dan will not, as a tribe, be reckoned among those who receive their salvation. He must wait for his salvation. The people of Dan today are so steeped in "religious" paganism and superstition, and are so blinded that they are not, as a tribe, receiving their salvation at this time. Another important prophecy is found in Deuteronomy 33:22; "And of Dan he said, 'Dan is a lion's whelp: He shall LEAP from Bashan!'" What does it mean to leap from Bashan? In Joshua 19:40-48, we read the account of Joshua dividing to the Danites their allotted portion among the tribes of Israel. The inheritance of the tribe of Dan lay on the Mediterranean coast (v. 41).
And the coast of the children of Dan went too little for them: therefore the children of Dan went out to fight against Leshem and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem [Laish, Judges 18:29] DAN, after the name of their father (Josh. 19:47).
In the eighteenth chapter of Judges is another account of the expansion of the tribe of Dan. "In those days there was no king in Israel: in those days the tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell in; for unto that day all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel." (Judges 18:1). The rest of this chapter is an account of some scouts being sent out from the tribe of Dan to the far northern border of Israel, to a city called Laish (v.7). Later on, these Danites conquered Laish. "And they called the name of the city (Laish) Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first" (Judges 18:29). Have you noticed that we have now seen two accounts of the people of Dan changing the name of the city and naming it after their ancestral father, Dan? Remember, Dan was to be a serpent by the waythat is, he was to leave his name along the trail wherever he would go. History produces an abundance of evidence showing that these sons of Dan (Danites) have left their name on the rivers and coastlands all along their route from Palestine to North-west Europe. Certain prophecies in the Bible show that Dan (as a serpent) was to leave a trail behind him, and it has been observed that the children of this tribe did, in fact, leave their mark in Palestine early in their history. These Danites began the habit of naming cities and rivers after the name of their father, Dan. Now let us observe that the sons of Dan have continued to do this same thing ever since. Remember, we have noticed that the people of this tribe were a great seafaring people. "Why did Dan remain in ships? the inspired prophetess Deborah had asked. Even at that early date, many of the Danites were sailing the Mediterranean, looking for treasure and adventure. Have the children of Dan left their mark or trail on their route from the Promised Land to the country which they now inhabit? There is ample evidence to prove that these adventuresome Danites had early exerted quite an influence in the regions of the Black Sea. In order for one to get to the Black Sea by ship, he must first pass from the Mediterranean into the Aegean Sea; from the Aegean, he must pass through the DarDANelles in order to reach the Black Sea. If one were to walk counterclockwise from the east end of the Black Sea, he would pass by the mouth of the following rivers by the time he got completely around to the west side of the Black Sea: (1) Don, (2) Donets, (3) Dnieper, (4) Dniester, and (5) Danube Rivers. If one will follow the DANube River in its westerly or north-westerly course, it will take him upstream into the heart of Europe. From here, if one leaves the Danube and takes a somewhat northerly direction when he gets to the point where the Danube flows through Vienna, Austria, he will come to DANzig, a city situated on the Baltic coast of North-central Poland. If one continues to follow the coast of the Baltic Sea, in a westward direction, he will soon come to DENmark (meaning Dan's mark). Following the coastline still further west-to-southwest from DENmark, one soon arrives at a city in Northern France call DUNkirk (meaning Dan's Church). From Dunkirk one can cross the English Channel to the British Isles where he will encounter many scores of cities, rivers and bays with the name of Dan, Den, Din, Don, or Dun somewhere included in them. All over the British Isles, one will find this name, showing that these Danites had traversed the British Isles at a very early date. In some instances this root word "Dan" may be used as a prefix, or as a suffix, or it may even occur in the middle of a word. It is in Ireland, however, where one will notice the largest number of these words with some form of the word "Dan" in them. DUNgiven is the name of a town not far from Belfast, North Ireland. There is also another very interesting thing about this name of Dan. It is found almost exclusively on rivers, and lakes or along the coastlines of Europe. This is again evidence that the people of Dan were, as the Bible indicates, a seafaring people. They have never been the mountaineering or Alpine type. They are always found near a river, lake or sea. Bear in mind that there were no vowels written in the Hebrew language. The basic part of this word when the vowel is dropped is DN. In different European lagnuages one will find a different vowel inserted in the word "Dan" between the letters "d" and "n". Some languages will use one vowel and some another when speaking or writing the word "Dan." Any of the vowels inserted in this word will not alter its basic sound. These are just a very few of the many ways in which this name of DAN is found near the coastlands of numerous countries of Europe, where these adventuresome Danites have gone. In fact, as we noticed, one country in Europe is named after Dan i.e. Denmark (Dan's Mark). Truly, Dan has left his trail or mark wherever he has gone. The city of DUN Laoghaire is near Dublin. Another important point in the 18th chapter of Judges is that of the vivid account of the IDOLATRY into which the people of Dan had already sunk, at this very early date in the history of Israel. In fact, this is the first recorded instance of any of the people of Israel sinking into idolatry, after the episode of the golden calf mentioned in Exodus 32:1-4. Later we shall see that the modern descendants of Dan are among the most superstitious and idolatrous in all the world. They still reverence and bow before their images and idols of every description. They tremble at the thought of the leprechauns and the "wee folk."
DANA GREAT SEAFARING PEOPLE
The prophetess, Deborah, in reference to the then-recent struggle between Israel and the Canaanites, said of Dan, "Why did Dan remain in ships?" (Judges 5:17). In other words, at the time when the Israelites were fighting for their freedom from under the oppression of the Canaanitish Sisera, undoubtedly the main body of the Danites was even then remaining in their ships, plying the waters of the Mediterranean with their Phoenician neighbors. Both the Scriptures and early secular history make it very clear that the people of Dan were a great seafaring people. The city of Joppa, in Dan's inheritance, must have been a seaport of some importance. It was at Joppa that Jonah boarded a ship for Tarshish (or Spain) (Jonah 1:3). If you will look at a map of the land of Palestine in the time of the Judges, you will notice that the tribe of Dan had a very small territory allotted to it along the Mediterranean Sea coast to the west and north-west of Jerusalem. Their territory only comprised about 500 square miles (Hurlbut, A Bible Atlas, p. 44). This allotment of land was not great enough for the people of Dan, so they had to push out northward and migrate to a new location. We have already seen that a colony of Danites left their southern inheritance and went up to Laish, or Dan, at the extreme northern part of Palestine. This city was within the tribal inheritance of Naphtali, but the Naphtalites had not possessed the city of Laish, so Dan conquered and possessed it. If you consult a map of this period in Israelitish history, you will notice that Laish lay only twenty-five miles due east of the city of Tyre. Remember that the ancient city of Tyre was soon afterwards to become the most important maritime city in all the Mediterranean, or even the whole world! Tyre has often been called the "New York" of the ancient world. So the people of Dan were very close to this great seafaring city. At the time of the division of Israel into two nations (Israel and Judah), there must have been few Danites living in their original territory, because most of Dan's inheritance was included in the Southern Kingdom of Judah (Hurlbut, A Bible Atlas, p. 80). The people of the tribe of Dan, however, were never included among the people of the Kingdom of Judah. According to secular history, some of these adventurous, seafaring Danites left Egypt even before the Exodus of the people of Israel, and migrated to Greece. They settled in the extreme southern part of Greece, and were later known as the Lacedemon (or Spartan) Greeks. They were also known as Dorians or people from "Dor." Dor was a prominent city (in the tribe of Manasseh), on the Mediterranean coast (Hurlbut, A Bible Atlas, p. 45). It was from this city that many Israelites left the Promised Land in order to settle in the southern part of Greece as Dorians! Diodorus Siculus (Circa 50 B.C.), who quoted Hecataeus of Abdera of the 6th century B.C., says that the most distinguished of the expelled foreigners (from Egypt) followed Cadmus and Danaus into Greece; but the greater number were supposed to have been led by Moses into the Promised Land (See Diodorus of Sicily, Book V). A number of other historians refer to this same incident. The tribe of Dan is not mentioned in the genealogical list given in I Chronicles 5:6-8. If you will turn to the accounts of the captivity of Israel as found in II Kings, chapters 15 and 17, you will see that the name of Dan is not mentioned a single time among those peoples who were carried into the captivities of 741-721 B.C. Dan and Naphtali had mixed with the Phoenicians of Tyre (Josephus, Ant., iii, 4; I Kings vii. 14; 2 Chron. 11, 14). In fact, you will search in vain to find the Danites mentioned any more as a tribe in any of the Bible accounts of the people of Israel, from the time of the Judges to the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. What happened to Dan? We have already seen a prophecy of the tribe of Dan which says "Dan shall leap from Bashan." The people of Dan migrated to the northern part of Palestine, and settled in the city of Laish, naming it after their father, Dan. This northern colony of Danites, living in the city of Dan, was located in the edge of the territory called Bashan. The Bible shows that these Danites were to leap from this territoryfrom Bashan. What does it mean to "leap from Bashan"? The word leap means: "To spring or move suddenly as if by a jump" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 478). A leap is a quick or sudden jump. It would appear, then, that this northern colony of Danites (perhaps because of the rumblings of the Assyrian armies about to invade Israel) emigrated hastily from their city of Dan. Where did Dan go from here? The Bible does not specifically say. Did the Danites leave hastily, migrating by land into the area of the Black Sea where we find the name of Dan on many of the rivers in that area? Or does the word "leap" mean that they went by ships (perhaps from the city of Tyre), and fled by this means to the area of the Black Sea? Or, perhaps some of them went on directly to Ireland! Later we shall have occasion to meet these roving tribesmen of Dan, under the appelation "Tuatha de Danaan."
THE LACEDEMONIAN GREEKS WERE DANITES
Herodotus, called "the father of history," who wrote in the fifth century B.C., also reveals the "Egyptian" origin of some of the Greeks. He says "If we ascend from Danae the daughter of Aerisus, we shall find that the ancestors of the Dorian princes were of Egyptian origin. Such is the Grecian account of the descent" (Herod., Bk. VI, I, iii). Remember these "Greek" Dorians were Israelites who had once lived in Egypt before they lived in Palestine. A number of historians refer to these Egyptian Danae. Herodotus says: "In what manner, being Egyptians; they became princes of the Dorians, having been mentioned by others, I need not relate; but I shall explain what they have omitted" (ibid., Bk.VI, iv). All early histories of Ireland mention a people coming into Ireland called TUATHA DE DAN, which means "tribe of Dan." Keating mentions that the Danaans were a people of immense learning and wealth. After a battle with the Assyrians, they left GREECE and some went to IRELAND. Others of them went to DENMARK and called it DAN-MARES, or Dan's country (History of Ireland, pp. 195-199). From another source, The Annals of Ireland, we read:
The Dan'ans were a highly civilised people, well skilled in architecture and other arts from their long residence in GREECE, and their intercourse with the Phoenicians. Their first appearance in Ireland was 1200 B.C., or 85 years after the great victory of DEBORAH.
Early Irish legends and traditions give much information showing that a colony of the tribe of Dan arrived in Ireland as early as the twelfth century B.C. They were known as the "Tuatha de Danaan." We shall discuss these people more fully in the chapter on early Scottish-Irish history. Professor A.H. Sayce shows that a long-headed people from Palestine, whom he termed "Amorites," had migrated from the land of Canaan to the Peninsula of Spain and France and into the British Isles. It has already been clearly shown that some of the historians mistakenly call the Israelites "Amorites." Josephus gives an account showing that at least some of the Lacedemonian Greeks were DANITES and were, therefore, related to the Jews. At the time when Onias was High Priest in Jerusalem, Areus, the Lacedemonian king, sent an ambassage with a letter to the Jewish High Priest. Here is a copy of the letter as mentioned by Josephus.
Areus king of the Lacedemonians, to Onias, sendeth greeting: We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that both the Jews and the Lacedemonians are of one stock, 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. 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. Demoteles, who brings you this letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is foursquare; and the seal is an EAGLE, with a dragon in its claws" (Ant., Bk. XII, Chap. iv, par. 10 pp. 296, 297).
The tribal emblem or ensign of Dan contained the image of a snake (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Art. Flag, p. 405). Fuller says that the emblem of Dan was an "adder biting horse heels." He also quotes the Jewish writer, Aben Ezra, a learned Jewish scholar of the time of Oliver Cromwell, as saying that the emblem of Dan was an "eagle with a dragon [serpent] in its claws" (Pisgah Sight of Palestine).
JEWISH HIGH PRIEST ACKNOWLEDGES KINSHIP TO THE LACEDEMONIAN GREEKS
From these sources we learn that the tribal emblems used on the national ensign of Dan were those of the SERPENT and the EAGLE. We have seen from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, a letter written by the Lacedemonian Greeks, to the Jews in which these "Greeks" claimed to be the brethren of the Jews. They wrote an epistle to the Jewish High Priest relating their kinship to them. Their seal, which was affixed to the letter was that of "an eagle with a dragon [serpent] in its claws." Excerpts from the reply to this epistle written by the Jewish High Priest to the Israelitish Greeks of South Greece is here given. As the Jewish ambassadors were returning from Rome they delivered this letter to the Spartan Greeks.
Jonathan the high priest of the Jewish nation... to the ephori and senate and the people of the Lacedemonians, send greeting: When in former times an epistle was brought to Onias, who was then our high priest... concerning the KINDRED that was between US and YOU, a copy of which is here subjoined, we both joyfully received the epistle... because we were well satisfied about it from the sacred writings, yet did not we think fit, first to begin the claim of this relation to you, the glory which is now given us by you. It is a long time since this relation of ours to you hath been renewed, and when we, upon holy and festival days, offer sacrifices to God, we pray to Him for your preservation and victory... You will, therefore, do well yourselves to write to us, and send us an account of what you stand in need of from us, since we are in all things disposed to act according to your desires" (Ant., Bk. XIII, Chap. 5, Sec. 8, p. 318).
Josephus says that the Lacedemonians kindly received the ambassadors, and "made a decree for friendship and mutual assistance." They then dispatched the letter to their Lacedemonian kinsmen (Ant., Bk. XIII, Chap. 5, Sec. 8, p. 318). Stephanus Byzantium shows that Alexander Polyhistor and Claudius Jφlaus also affirm a direct kinship between the ancient Spartans and the Jews (Bryant, Ancient Mythology, vol. 5, pp.51,52,60). The Jews of Christ's day knew some of the dispersed Israelites were among the Greeks. Notice the proper translation of John 7:35 as given in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. "Does He intend to go to the dispersion (Gk. diaspara] among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?" The Moffatt and other translations also properly translate this verse. These historical references are sufficient to show that some of Danites were living in Southern Greece centuries before Christ. From Greece many of these Israelites went to Ireland many centuries before Christ's time, and settled in that country. In a later chapter on Scottish-Irish history, we shall go into this subject more thoroughly. Thus we have seen Dan's trail in Greece and throughout Europe. It was to Ireland (and Denmark), that these Danites called the "Tuatha de Danaan" finally migrated and settled, making it their home. It is in Denmark and Ireland that they finally established their permanent homeland; and it is in Eire that their name is the most widely diffused. The Dans and Daniels are common in Ireland and who has never heard The Londonderry Air, also called "Danny Boy"?
EARLY SCOTTISH-IRISH HISTORY
In previous chapters we have noticed many links connecting the people of England and Wales directly with the Holy Land. It has been clearly pointed out that the Anglo- Saxons are definitely descendants of Shem and are, therefore, Semitic (Shemitic). We have also seen according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that some of the early immigrants to England were from Armenia the very land to which Israel was taken in the captivities of 741 and 721 B.C. Now let us examine early Scotch-Irish history to notice the many links directly connecting the people of Scotland and Ireland with the Promised Land, and consequently with the people of the Lost Ten-Tribed House of Israel in exile. Ireland is reputed to possess genuine history several centuries more ancient than any other European nation possesses in its present spoken language. Having perused a number of Irish histories, it was finally decided that The History of Ireland by Moore would best convey the most important points of Irish history. Most Irish historians mention the same events and arrive at the same general conclusions as those expressed by Moore.
THE FIVE COLONIES
The five colonies who are said to have inhabited Ireland, are as follows: The first colony known to have settled in Ireland was supposed to have been of the "race of Japhet." They are said to have gone to Ireland about the beginning of the fourth century after the Flood. The chief of this colony was named Partholan. After possessing Ireland for about 300 years (from circa 2069-1769 B.C.), all of the RACE OF PARTHOLAN were "swept away by a plague" (Moore, The History of Ireland, Vol. I, p.59). "To this colony succeeded another [the 2nd colony] about the time, it is said, of the patriarch, Jacob, who were called, from the name of their leader, NEMEDIANS, and are said to have come from the shores of the Euxine, [Black] Sea" (ibid., p.63). The derivation of this NEMEDIAN Scythian colony from the vicinity of the Black Sea agrees with the generally accepted European tradition which regards "the regions in the neighbourhood of the Caucasian Mountains... as the main source of the population of the West" (ibid., p.63). This agrees completely with the scriptural account which shows that the Israelites were dispersed into the regions just south of the Caucasus Mountains; and all history is crystal clear in showing that all of the North-west European peoples came from this general area. This is one more proof that the peoples of North-western Europe are, in fact, different branches of dispersed Israel. Fierce wars were waged between these Nemedians and some African sea-rovers called Fomorians. The African Fomorian mariners were joined by men and fresh supplies, and a battle ensued in which the Africans were victorious. The Nemedian colony (named after Nemedh, their leader) was dispersed and destroyed. They had dwelt in Ireland for about 217 years (1709-1492 B.C.). Because of oppression and enslavement under the fierce Formorians [sic. Fomorians], a colony of these Nemedians fled to Greece; but they later on returned to Ireland about 217 years after the first Nemedian Colony had first gone there. When they returned to Ireland, they bore a new name (FIR-BOLGS) which they had received while in Greece. Ireland was once more left to the mercy of the African foreign marauders and became a desolate wilderness for about 200 years. These Fir-Bolgs were the third colony who settled Irelandthough they were descended from the Scythian Nemedian colony. They were the first people to establish regal authority over Ireland. Having divided Ireland into five parts or provinces, they established a Pentarchal form of government which continued, except for a few interruptions, until the beginning of the 15th century B.C.
THE TRIBE OF DAN
Ireland was ruled by the Fir-Bolgs for only 30 or 40 years.
Their tenure of royalty, however, was but short: for, not more than thirty or forty years had this quintuple sovereignty remained in their hands, when they were dispossessed by the TUATHA-DE-DANAAN, a people famed for necromancy, who after sojourning for some time in Greece, where they had learned this mysterious art, proceeded from thence to Denmark and Norway (ibid., p. 60).
From those lands they went to Ireland and overpowered the "alarmed Belgians," meaning the Fir-Bolgs after which these Tuatha-de-Danaan became sole masters of the country. The first contingent of the Tuatha-De-Danaan appear to have gone to Ireland about 1456 B.C.during Israel's 40-year wanderings in the desert under Moses. A second contingent of this tribe of Dan probably went to Ireland in the time of the Prophetess Deborah circa 1213 B.C. Who were these "Tuatha-de-Danaan"? Let us first see what the definition of the word "TUATH" is. "TUATH (T.ah). Irish History... A 'tribe' or 'people' in Ireland" (A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Vol. X, Part I, def. Tuath, p.441). Dr. Robert Gordon Latham, well-known nineteenth century ethnologist, definitely believed the Greek Danaans were the descendents of Dan. He says:
Neither do I think that the eponymus [ancestral name] of the Argive Danai was other than that of the Israelite tribe of Dan; only we are so used to confine ourselves to the soil of Palestine in our consideration of the history of the Israelites (Ethnology of Europe, p. 137).
Dr. Latham then goes on to show that the people of Dan must have had close connections with the peoples of Southern Greece, and he concludes by saying: "Yet with Danai and the tribe of Dan this is the case, and no one connects them" (ibid.). There can be no doubt that the people who were called by such names as Dan, Danai, and Danaans were all the same people. The histories of Ireland are replete with references to people of the tribe of Dan (Tuatha-de-Danaan) who had early come to Ireland from Greece. Muller, commenting on some of the fragments of the Greek manuscripts of Hecateus of Abdera says:
Hecateus therefore, tells us that the Egyptians, formerly being troubled by calamities, [referring to the Ten Plagues at the time of the Israelitish Exodus] in order that the divine wrath might be averted, expelled all the aliens gathered together in Egypt. Of these, some, under their leaders DANUS and CADMUS, migrated into GREECE; others into other regions, THE GREATER PART INTO SYRIA [meaning Palestine]. THEIR LEADER IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN MOSES, a man renowned for wisdom and courage, founder and legislator of the state. Afterwards many Mosaic institutes followed. (Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, Vol. II, p. 385).
Both Hecateus of Abdera (3rd century B.C.) and Diodorus of Sicily mention that the people of DANAI, under their leader Danus, came from EGYPT, but Hecateus says that the greater part of the DANITES went into Syria or Palestine under the leadership of MOSES. Notice the following interesting comments from Diodorus:
They say also that those who set forth with Danaus, likewise from Egypt, settled what is practically the oldest city of GREECE, Argos, and that the nations of the COLCHI in Pontus and that of the Jews, which lies between Arabia and Syria, were founded as colonies by certain emigrants from their country; and this is the reason why it is a long-established institution among these two people to circumcise their male children... the custom having been brought over from Egypt. (Diodorus of Sicily, Book I, Sec. xxviii, 1-5).
Putting all of these historical bits of information (and this is only a small portion of such information) together, it becomes quite clear that the people who settled Ireland by the name of "Tuatha-de-Danaan" were some of the descendants of the Israelitish tribe of Dan! We have already observed that the Tuatha-de-Danaan were the FOURTH COLONY to settle in Ireland AFTER THE FLOOD. What happened to these Tuatha-de-Danaan?
THE MILESIAN SCOTS
In process of time, the Tuatha-de-Danaan were themselves dispossessed of their sway; a successful invasion from the coast of Spain having put an end to the Danaanian dynasty, and transferred the sceptre into the hands of that Milesian or SCOTIC race, which through so long a series of succeeding ages, supplied Ireland with her kings. This celebrated colony, though coming directly from Spain, was originally, we are told, of Scythic race (Moore, The History of Ireland, p. 60).
This Milesian or "Scotic race," arrived in Ireland in 1016 A.D. and remained the ruling people in Ireland for many hundreds of years. It was these Scythian Scots who finally settled the northern part of England, calling it Scotland. Centuries later, descendants of this Scythic or Scottish people settled in Canada, naming the province in which they had settled "Novia Scotia." This FIFTH COLONY to invade Ireland, called MILESIANS or SCOTS, had come from Scythia, as nearly all historians agree, and they definitely connected themselves with the people of Israel, the heroes of Israel, and the Holy Land! Speaking of the Milesian Scots, Moore says:
Tracing this chosen race in their migrations to different countries, and connecting them, by marriage or friendship, during their long sojourn in Egypt, with most of the heroes of Scripture history, our [Scotch-Irish] Bards conduct them at length, by a route not very intelligible, to Spain (ibid., p. 60).
There can be no doubt about the colony of the "Tuatha-de-Danaan" being Israelitish Danites, and the Milesian Scots were definitely also Israelites, but were of the tribe of Joseph. We have just seen in the above quotation that the Scots connected their people with "most of the heroes of Scripture history," and we have also noticed that they had experienced a "long sojourn in Egypt." We know that this could only refer to people of the tribes of Israel, for it was only they who had resided a long time in Egypt, and who were also connected with "most of the heroes of Scripture history."
I shall now proceed to the consideration of that latest and most important of all her settlements, the Scythic, or Scotic, from whence the whole of her people in the course of time received the name of Scots, and retained it exclusively to so late a period as the tenth century of our era (ibid. p. 69).
According to the preceding quotation, Ireland retained the name of "Scotia" until so late a period as the tenth century! If one will consult the older maps of Ireland, he will soon discover the truth of the above statement. It was at a later period that some of the Milesian Scots from Northern Ireland crossed the Irish Sea and established their rule in the northern part of England, naming their new country Scotland, meaning the land of the Scots. Dr. Wylie mentions that when the early historians speak of Scotland, it is always "the Irish Dalriada"or the country of "Antrim" in North Ireland which they refer to.
The name Scotia began to be of more general application, and to be given to the whole of Ireland. It was not until the tenth century that the name of Scotland was applied to the country on this side of the Channel, that is, to Scotland of today (History of the Scottish Nation, Vol. I, p. 298).
According to the oldest Irish chronicles, Abbot Tighernac, descendant of the Scotic king of Ulster, led a colony of Milesian Scots (Dalriada) from Antrim to the northern part of England. After a number of conflicts with the Picts, they were finally victorious, and gained complete control of the northern part of England, naming it after themselves, Scotland. Moore further shows that these Milesian Scots traced themselves all the way back to some of the people of Israel. Speaking of their Scottish descent, he says:
A scheme of descent which traces the ancestors of the Irish [referred to the Scotch-Irish] through a direct series of generations not merely to the first founders of Phoenician arts and enterprise, but even to chieftans connected by friendship with the prophet Moses himself (History of Ireland, p. 71).
Many historians look upon these historical accounts as fables, but there is ample scriptural and historical evidence to prove that this is not fable, but is fact of the most important significance!
"It is indeed evident," says Moore, "that those persons to whom St. Patrick applies the name Scots, were all of the high and dominant class; whereas, when speaking of the great bulk of the people, he call them Hiberionaces, from the name Hiberione, which is always applied by him to the island itself (ibid., p. 72).
Dr. Wylie mentions that there were two different peoples dwelling in IrelandHiberni and Scoti. There was a marked distinction between the two. "The Scots are the military class; they are the nobles... The latter [the Hiberni] are spoken of as the commonality, the sons of the soil" (History of the Scottish Nation, Vol. I, p. 281). The main difference between these people is that the Hiberni are descendants of Dan by Jacob and his concubine Bilhah. The people of Scoti are descendants of Joseph through Jacob and Rachel, Jacob's beloved wife. It was only the descendants of Joseph who were to be blessed with the birthright blessings (I Chr. 5:2). "St. Patrick often uses Scoti and Reguli as equivalent terms. To the term Scottus he adds often the word Nobilis; whereas he has no other appellative for the native Irish but Hyberione, or Hyberni genae, the common people" (ibid., fn. p. 282). Remember that such names as Iber, Eber, Heber, Ebernes, Hiberones, etc. are all words referring to the ancestor "Heber" from whom the Hebrews have all descended. The Scots, Irish, English and other branches of the so-called "Nordic" races are all descendants of Eber or Heber. "In considering the Scots to have been a Scythian extraction, all parties are agreed" (ibid., p. 73). Moore then mentions that the Bards sang of the Milesian Scots as having come from the East through Spain. He says:
The Celto-Scythae, who founded a part of the mixed people of Spain, having come originally from the neighbourhood of the Euxine Sea [Black] and therefore combining in themselves all the peculiarities attributed to the Milesian colony, of being at once Scythic, Oriental, and direct from Spain (ibid., p. 73).
He then mentions that, of the actual settlement of a number of Spanish (meaning Celto-Scythian) tribes in the Emerald Isle (Ireland), there is no reason to doubt. Moore shows that the European Scythians had come from Persia. "That the Scyths of Europe came from the northern parts of Persia, seems to be the opinion of most enquirers on the subject" (ibid., fn. p.73). The above quotation tallies completely with the scriptural account which shows that Israel was taken into captivity to Assyria and Media which was in the vicinity of Persia. It is also interesting to note that, according to the Bards, all of the colonies who settled in Ireland (excepting the earliest colony which was destroyed with a plague) were all of the same race. They were, in fact, all descendants of Israel!
The Bardic historians themselves, who represent the Scoti to have been of Scythic descent and to have from thence derived their distinctive appellation... and to confirm still further the origin of the Scots from that quarter, it is added by the Bards that they were of the same race with the three colonies that had preceded them; namely, the Nemedians, the Tuatha-de- Danaans, and the Firbolgs or Belgae (ibid., p. 74).
It is also interesting to note that, according to Dr. Wylie, the Scots, Caledonians, Belgae (Firbolgs), Gauls, PICTS and Cimric or Celtic settlers of the British Isles were all of the same race (The History of the Scottish Nation, Vol. I. pp. 264, 265).
THE PROBLEM OF THE PICTS
Before we continue our study of Scottish-Irish history, let us briefly examine the enigma of the Picts. The problem of the Picts has baffled many historians. There is hardly any subject which is shrouded in more mystery (Moore, The History of Ireland, Vol. I, p. 85). Also there is virtually no subject on which there is more disagreement by the so-called authorities. A number of the histories imply that some of the Picts were Celts; others, judging from their social customs, must have contained a racial element with close affinities to some of the North American Indians. Here are facts which have caused some to equate the original Picts with certain American Indian tribes: (1) the practice of matriarchy, (2) the art of canoes made from skins, and (3) the fact that their huts or tents resembled the tepees of the American Indians, might lead one to agree with those proponents of the "Indian theory" of origin for at least some of the Picts. There is, however, abundant material to show that at least a great part of the later "Picts" must have been of "Celtic" descent. On one occasion the Milesian Scots gave their daughters to the Picts for wives. This is a strong indication that these Picts must not have been an Indian type. In a work entitled History of the Scottish Nation, by Wylie, page 306, we are told St. Columba (an Irish missionary 7th century A.D.) went from Ireland to Scotland where "He obtained an interview with the Pictish king, Bruidi, son of Malcolm, at his Dun or castle, on the banks of the Ness, near where the river issues from its parent Loch." After this interview Bruidi declared himself a convert to Christianity. Here we note the Pictish king living in a castle! The American Indians never lived in castles! Neither did the Indian-type "Picts," who inhabited Northern England at one time, ever dwell in proper house or castles.
ANCIENT IRISH HISTORY
Dr. Guest points out very clearly that the people in Ireland called "Scoti" were distince from that great body of the Irish people, who were name Hiberiones. He then quotes Nennius, on the primitive populations of Ireland.
If any here would know at that time Hirbernia [Ireland] was uninhabited and waste, this was the information the learned among the Scots gave me... when the sons of Israel passed through the Red Sea the Egyptians followed them and were drowned as is read in the Law. But there was among the Egyptians a nobleman from Scythia with a great retinue, who had been before driven from his kingdom, and was there when the Egyptians were drowned, and who did not go out to persue the people of God. But they who survived took counsel and expelled him, less he should overspread their country, as their princes were drowned in the Red Sea (Origines Celticae, Vol. II, p. 24).
Nennius then shows that these Scythians who witnessed the drowning of Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea, left Egypt and sailed through the Mediterranean to the Columns of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar) and went to Spain where they dwelt many years. After increasing greatly in numbers "they came to Hibernia, a thousand and two years after the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea." The Britons came to Britain in the third age of the world, and the Scots got possession of Hibernia in the fourth (ibid., pp. 22-26). Did you notice that Nennius mentioned the "sons of Israel" and their passing "through the Red Sea?" He also mentioned "A nobleman from Scythia with a great retinue" who, he says, had been driven from his kingdom, and was there when the Egyptians were drowned at the Red Sea (at the Exodus), but that he did not go out to pursue the people of God. Also, the people of this nobleman later came through the Mediterranean to Spain. Afterwards they left Spain and came to Ireland a thousand and two years after the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea. This is undoubtedly a somewhat garbled account of the Israelites, who were the progenitors of the Scots and the Irish. In the library of the Royal Irish Academy is a poem on "the kings of the race of Eibhair" (Heberthe ancestor of Abraham). Here is the introduction to this poem:
The Use of Armes and Escouchions is anciently observed by the Irishry, in imitation of ye Children of Israell, who began to use them in Egypt (at which time the Ancestor of all the Irishry, called Gaoidhil, or Gathelus, there lived), which Armes, The Israelites at their passing through ye Redd Seas, under the conduct of Moyses, did carry in their severall Banners. They were in all Twelve Tribes, and each Tribe had a cetain number of men under his own command with Distinct Banners and Armes.
From a work entitled "Leabhar Gabhala," or the Book of the Conquest of Ireland is the following account: "Now Nel lived southward in Egypt, in Capachirunt [Pi-hahiroth] Exodus xiv. 2, on the shores of the Red Sea, which is called the Mare Rubrum. That was the time when the Children of Israel escaped from the Egyptian bondage wherein they were with Pharaoh" (O'Cleirigh, Leabhar Gabhala, p. 127). A considerable amount of material is given describing the conversation and the relationship of this nobleman, named Nel, with Moses and Aaron. Then follows an account of the land of Scythia being mentioned a number of times. We are told of "THIRTY SHIPS" with three score in each ship (ibid., p. 137). The Caspian Sea is also mentioned in this history on numerous occasions. This account also speaks of the "Graecian Scythia" and relates a number of instances of contacts between the Scythian people and the Egyptians. The Scythian nobleman, Golamh, later is given Scotia, the daughter of Pharaoh, in marriage. From here they or their descendants traveled through the Mediterranean Sea to Spain and finally arrived in Ireland. They had to subdue the people of the tribe of Dan on their arrival.
The Tuatha de Danaan did not suffer them to come to land there, for they had not held a parley with them... They encircled Ireland three times, till Thursday, so far as the day of the week, on the day before the Calendes of May, the 17th day of the moon: Anno Mundi 3500 (ibid., p. 122).
In the Annals of Clonmacnoise we read of the patriarch Abraham, and also mention is made "... of the Raigne of Semiramis then monarche of the world in Assiria." This account also mentions "Nibroth [Nimrod] Sonn of Chus, [Cush] who was son of Cham [Ham], who was sonne of Noeh." We next read of some "Fffirvolge" (Fir-Bolgs) who were in Ireland, but who were continually molested and harassed by Carthaginian African Sea rovers and who, because of this, finally went back to Greece. Later these same people returned to Ireland where they finally settled.
Upon them [Fir-bolgs] came in the people called Twathy De Danaan out of Greece too. Being a Braunch of the same stock that ffirvolge [Fir-Bolgs] were of and were kinsmen. Dureinge the time of ffirvolge which was 37 yeares, there Raigned in Assiria 3 monarchs... Twany de Danaan after they had spent much tyme abroad in learneinge nigromancy, Magicke, and other Diobolicall artes wherein they were exceedingly well skilled, and in these Dayes accounted the cheefest in the world in that profession, Landed in the west part of Connaught. ffirvolge hearinge of theire comeing made towards them, and meeting them in a greate plaine calle Moytoyrey in Connaught, fought with them, where ffirvolge was overthrone and one Hundred thousand of them slaine with there said King Eochy McEirche, which was the greatest slaughter that was hard of in Ireland in one meeting (Annals of Clonmacnoise From the Creation to A.D. 1408,1627 ed.).
Detailed accounts are then given of the history of the Israelites, and mention is made of the "Twathy De Danaan" (Tribe of Dan) and of the "Egiptians" and of the "Raigne of Dauid King of Israel and Judea" and of "Pharao" and also of "Solomon," King of Jerusalem. The nation or kingdom of "Assiria" and of the "Assirians" are mentioned repeatedly as well as the "Twathy de Danaan." It is interesting to note that the historians who wrote or compiled this history continually sought to harmonize the events in the history of Ireland with those of Egypt, but more especially with Assiria. Since a colony of Danites had lived in the extreme northern part of the land of Israel, they must have been well acquainted with the Assyrians and their monarchs, especially since the frontier of Israel had been extended on occasions all the way to the Euphrates which would have bordered on the land of the Assyrians. At this period, a segment of the people of Israel must have been next door neighbours of the Assyrians. This would undoubtedly account for the many references to the Assyrians and their monarchs in the ancient chronicles of Ireland. We notice similar accounts of the Irish history in a work entitled The History of Ireland from the Earliest Period to The English Invasion, by Geoffrey Keating. In this work we read of the confounding of the languages in the time of Nimrod. Keating also mentions a Scythian nobleman called "Niul" who went to Egypt with his family, and who was dwelling in Egypt at the time of the Exodus of the children of Israel. We are informed by Keating that Niul (Nel) showed kindness to Moses and Aaron and the children of Israel, for which he incurred the enmity of Pharaoh.
Pharaoh Intur and the Egyptians, in time, remembered their old grudge to the descendents of Niul and the family of Gaedal, namely, their resentment for the friendship the latter had formed with the children of Israel. They, then, made war upon the GAELS, who were thereby compelled to exile themselves from Egypt (Keating, History of Ireland From The Earliest Period to The English Invasion, pp. 153-156).
With this account Thomas Walsingam agrees, in the book called Hypodeigma, where he states that:
When the Egyptians had been drowned in the Red Sea, those of their countrymen who survived, drove out a certain chieftain of the Scythian nation, who lived among them, that he might not assume sovereignty over them. Banished with his tribe, he came to Spain where he resided many years, and where his posterity grew numerous, and that thence he came at last to Ireland (ibid.).
These are only a very few of the many references in ancient Irish history to the people of Israel. Irish history is replete with statements showing a direct connection between Ireland and the Holy Land.
JEREMIAH OLLAMH FODHLA
Among the famous persons who have illuminated the pages of Irish history, the Royal Sage, Ollamh Fodhla (pronounced Ollav Folla) stands out preeminently as "a being of historical substance and truth" (Moore, The History of Ireland, Vol. I, p. 86). He was the "celebrated personage" who was known as a great legislator in Ireland. There are different conjectures as to when this Sage ruled in Ireland. Moore quotes the author of Dissertations (Sect. 4) as showing that this Royal Sage held sway in Ireland about 600 B.C. There are, of course, other conjectures as to when this Royal personage lived in Ireland; but according to scriptural history and prophecy, we know it must have been about 600 B.C. or shortly thereafter when this Royal Sage exercised his powerful influence in Ireland. Let us consider the background leading up to the arrival of this Royal Personage in Ireland.
JUDAH THE REGAL TRIBE
Speaking of Judah and his descendant, Genesis 49:10 says: "The Sceptre [the king's royal staff of authority] shall not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." This prophecy shows very clearly that the sceptre would not depart from the tribe of Judah until the coming of Shiloh (Christ), and the establishment of Messianic rule over all the earth. It is well to remember that regal authority was vested in the tribe of Judah, through the great material birthright blessings were to devolve upon the tribe of Joseph. "For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's" (I Chr. 5:2) God solemnly promised David that He would establish forever the throne of his seed after his death! As long as human beings were being begotten, David's throne was to be ruling somewhere on this earth (II Sam. 5:13, 29). "Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and HIS THRONE as the sun before me" (vv. 34, 36). In Jeremiah 33:17, God solemnly declares: "For thus saith the Lord, DAVID SHALL NEVER WANT [lack] A MAN to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel." Most people don't believe God meant what He said regarding David always having a son ruling somewhere on this earth! They think that when the Jewish throne was overthrown in Jerusalem circa 585 B.C., that this brought an end to the throne of David. But "God cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). "The scripture cannot be broken" (Jn. 10:35). In Jeremiah 1:10, we read: "See, I have this day set thee (Jeremiah) over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant." What was Jeremiah to pull down and throw down, and what was he to build and to plant? God, through the prophet Jeremiah, had predicted that the Babylonish King Nebuchadnezzar, would invade the land of Judah and destroy the Jewish kingdom. For this prophecy Jeremiah was looked upon as a traitor, and was imprisoned (Jer. 38:1-10). But later, as Jeremiah had prophesied, Nebuchadnezzar did march against Judah, and destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the Jewish kingdom. This occurred in the eleventh year of the reign of King Zedekiah circa 585 B.C. All of Zedekiah's sons (royal seed) were slain before his very eyes; then his own eyes were put out; afterward he was carried to Babylon, where he died in bonds (II Ki. 25; II Chr. 26; Jer. 39 and Jer. 52). God had used Nebuchadnezzar to punish the Jewish people for their sins and to bring about this punishment upon His people. Jeremiah was released from his imprisonment by the Babylonians (Jer. 40:1-5). In fact, he obtained such favour in the sight of the captain of the guard that "the captain of the guard gave him victuals and a reward, and let him go" (v. 5).
JEWISH PRINCESSES IN EGYPT
Without attempting to give all of the scriptures showing all the movements of Jeremiah, let us next turn to Jeremiah chapter 43, verses 1 through 7 to pick up the main thread of this story. In the first few verses of this chapter, we see Jeremiah and his scribe, Baruch, had a controversy with the chief leaders of the remnant of the Jews regarding whether or not they ought to flee to Egypt for protection.
But Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, took all the remnant of Judah, that returned from all nations, wither they had been driven, to dwell in the land of Judah; even men, and women, and children, and the king's daughters... and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah. So that they came into the land of Egypt: For they obeyed not the voice of the Lord: thus came they even to Tahpanhes (vv. 5-7).
Notice, Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch and "the king's daughters" all "came into the land of Egypt... even to Tahpanhes." This same city is referred to as a garrison of the Egyptians (Jer. 2:16). In a work entitled Egypt and Israel, by Sir. W.M. Flinders Petrie, we find archaeological confirmation of the visit of Jeremiah and the royal daughters to Tahpanhes. In reference to a prophecy uttered in Ezekiel 30:14-18, Sir Flinders Petrie says:
These references show that Tahpanhes was an important garrison, and as the Jews fled there it must have been close to the frontier. It is thus clear that it was the Greek Daphnae, the modern Tell Defneh, which is on the road to Palestine... Of this an echo comes across the long ages; the fortress mound is known as the Qasr Bint el Yehudi, the palace of the Jew's daughter. It is named Qasr, as a palace, not Qala, a fortress. It is not named Tell Bint el Yehudi, as it would be if it were called so after it were a ruinous heap. Qasr is a name which shows its descent from the time of habitation and habitation for nobility and not merely for troops. So through the long ages of Greek and Roman and Arab there has come down the memory of the royal residence for the king's daughters from the wreck of Jerusalem (Petrie, Egypt and Israel, pp. 85, 86).
Thus we have indisputable archaelogical proof verifying the biblical account that Jeremiah and the "king's daughters" did go down to Tahpanhes" (Gk. Daphnae), being carried there by Johanan and all the captains of the forces of the remnant of Judah who were fleeing from the wrath of the Chaldeans. What happened to Jeremiah and the king's daughters? Remember, Jeremiah was also commissioned to build and to plant. But what was he to build and to plant? Was he not to build and plant that which he had also torn down the throne of David? We know that Jeremiah, his scribe Baruch, and some of these fugitive Jews later left Egypt and went to the far west, to an island called Ireland, where they settled, living out the remainder of their lives in the "Emerald Isle." Isaiah 37:31, 32 gives another link which explains this mystery.
"And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward; for out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of Mount Zion: the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall do this."
This clearly shows that the royal seed of Judah would again be established on a throne. Now read Ezekiel 21:18-27.
And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, thus saith the Lord God: remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and it shall be no more [overturned] until He come whose right it is; and I will give it Him (vv. 25-27).
Verse 25 referred to the profane and wicked king, Zedekiah, who was going to be humbled and abased. The diadem or crown was to be taken from his head, and put on the head of one who had been of low rank. There is nothing in the Bible or in history to show that the Davidic crown passed to any one other than to the sovereigns ruling in Ireland! The throne was first overturned at Jerusalem. The crown of the Jewish kings was thrown to the ground. (1) From here this crown was transferred to Ireland where its possessors ruled for many centuries. (2) From Ireland it was transferred to Scotland where the Scottish sovereigns all wore this crown. (3) From Scotland it was transferred to London, England (the third overturning); and it shall be overturned no more until the Second Coming of Christ until Shiloh come. The expression "I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and it shall be no more" cannot possibly mean that the throne would cease after the third overturning, because we have seen a number of scriptures in which God solemnly promised David that he would have a decendant sitting upon this throne throughout every generation as long as the sun, the moon and the stars continued to exist! Neither can this mean, as some would have us believe, that this throne (after being thrice overturned) would forever thereafter remain in London, England. The Bible shows that it would not be overturned any more after arriving in London, until the Second Coming of Christ, when it will once more be overturned and taken back to Jerusalem never again to be overturned. Here in Jerusalem, Shiloh shall sit (Jer.3:17), ruling for 1,000 years (Rev.20:4-6). Now notice Ezekiel 17:1-24. This riddle or parable pertains to God's throwing down the Jewish nation and the Jewish throne in Jerusalem (the high tree). It also depicts the exalting of the "low tree" (the dry tree) which God had determined to make to flourish.
Thus saith the Lord God: I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a TENDER ONE, and will plant it upon a high mountain and eminent (v. 22).
There can be no doubt that the "tender one" refers to a daughter from the high twig (the royal family) of the Davidic line who had been ruling in Judah. "In the mountain of the height of ISRAEL will I plant it." God showed that in Israel, it would become a mighty tree, and would bear much fruit. This is exactly what happened when the Jewish throne was overturned. The king's daughters were taken by Jeremiah from the land of Palestine to Egypt; and from there to Ireland. Their descendants have ruled over the British Isles, in the mountains (nations) of Britain and her Commonwealth ever since. Queen Elisabeth II possesses a chart showing here decent all the way back to King David and through him on back to Adam! We have already seen, according to Moore, that one of the dates when the Royal Sage, Ollamh Fodhla, came to Ireland was given as about 600 B.C. From the biblical account we know that this prophet or Royal Sage was none other than Jeremiah himself! "Some of the most useful institutions of Ollamh Fodhla are said to have but a short time survived himself" (Moore, The History of Ireland, Vol. I, p. 87).
Among the important offices transmitted hereditarily in Ireland were those of heralds, practictioners in physic, bards, and musicians. To the professors of these arts Ollamh Fodhla assigned lands for their use; and also instituted a school of general instruction at Tara, which became afterwards celebrated under the name of the Mur-ollam-ham, or College of the Learned (ibid., p.88).
The ancient histories of Ireland also show that when this Royal Sage came to Ireland, he was accompanied by a scribe called Baruch or Brec. This Royal Sage brought a Royal Princess from the East. A marriage between this Royal Eastern Princess and Prince Herimon of Ulster (Northern Ireland) was effected and soon thereafter Herimon became king.
JEREMIAH IN IRELAND
Even to this very day a very strong tradition prevails in Ireland showing that many centuries ago a prophet by the name of Jeremiah had come to the "Sacred Isle." The writer, while touring Ireland a few years ago, was passing through a town called Enniskillen. The local inhabitants informed him that the burial place of the prophet Jeremiah was supposed to be nearby. Thereupon the writer and a friend with whom he was travelling hired a guide to take them to "Jeremiah's Tomb." The traditional TOMB OF JEREMIAH is located on Devenish Isle, Lough Erne, North Ireland! Some may discount this as mere tradition, but remember that tradition often contains kernels of truth buried beneath some chaff. We know, especially from the Bible (as well as from history) that Jeremiah did journey to Northern Ireland bringing the royal seed the daughters of King Zedekiah with him. One of these daughters, Tea Tephi, married Prince Herimon, a descendant of Zarah, a son of Judah. Princess Tea Tephi was a descendant of Pharez, whose descendants had been reigning in Jerusalem, Palestine. This marriage united the Pharez and the Zarah line, and the "breach" (Pharez means "breach") was at last mended. But how do we know that the descendants of Zarah were in North Ireland?
THE RED HAND OF ULSTER
From time immemorial the people of Northern Ireland (Ulster) have used the "RED HAND" as an emblem on their heraldry. This "red hand" goes back to the time of Zarah's birth, when a RED or SCARLET THREAD was tied around his HAND, signifying Zarah's right to a regal position (Gen. 38:28, 29). His brother, Pharez, was born first, causing a breach. Some of the "Scotic" people of North Ireland were descendants of the Zarah line of Judah! "The St. George's Cross with the ANCIENT regional emblem, the BLOOD-RED RIGHT HAND of Ulster, at its center surmounted by the Royal Crown, forms the flag of Northern Ireland. A shield bearing the similar emblem and surrounded by a wreath at the center of the Union forms the flag of the Governor of Ireland" (Evans, The Observer's Book of Flags, p. 28). On page 27 of this book is illustrated the flag of Northern Ireland. The flag has a white background with a red cross. In the centre is a SIX POINTED STAR, and in the center of this white star is "the BLOOD-RED RIGHT HAND OF ULSTER." Above the six-pointed "star of David" is the Royal crown. This six-point star, called "the star of David," does not appear to be of Davidic origin but ante-dates King David by many centuries. Whether or not this six-pointed star is of pagan origin, the fact remains that the Jews have used this star from time immemorial. Why does Ulster use this star if it is not connected with Judah through the Zarah line? On page 194 of this same book is a display of a number of the flags of Yacht clubs. The "Royal Ulster" flag consists of a purple flag with a Union Jack in the upper left hand corner, but in the lower right hand corner of the flag, there is a white shield, on which is superimposed the Red Right Hand of Ulster. Above the shield and hand is the Royal crown. It is also interesting to observe that the people of Ulster (the Milesian Scots) not only ruled all of Ireland and imposed their name upon the island until so late a date as the tenth century A.D., but later many of these Scythian Scots crossed the Irish Sea and settled in the northern part of the island of England, which they named "Scotia." Scotia was later called "Scotland" (land of the Scots). From a book entitled The Scottish Tartans, illustrated by William Semple, we are informed that there are about ten or twelve of the clans of Scotland, whose coats of arms to this very day still include the "blood-red Right Hand of Ulster." On page 103 of this book he mentions the Matheson clan (called Mac-mhathan or Mac-mhagan in Gaelic), which has on its coat of arms a white shield with three of the blood-red Right Hands of Ulster. Thus we can easily see the influence of the Zarah line of Judah in Ulster. This does not mean that all of the people of Ulster are descendants of the Zarah branch of Judah. Most of the Northern Irish are undoubtedly descendants of Joseph. But those Israelitish sons of Joseph arrived in Ireland under the name of "Scythian" (Skuthes or Scots, etc.). We have already noted that those Milesian Scots from Scythia gave their name both to Ireland and to Scotland. Ireland retained the name of Scotia even until the tenth century A.D.
SCOTTISH-IRISH SETTLERS "FROM ISRAEL"
In one of the oldest histories in the English language we are informed that Britain was formerly called the "White Island" or "Albion" and that it was situated in the Western Ocean between Ireland and Gaul. Britain, according to this ancient history, was inhabited by five different nations Britons, Saxons, Romans, Picts, and SCOTS (Roberts, The Brut or The Chronicles of the Kings of Briton). In The Brut, we are informed of Gwrganr, son of Beli, King of Britain, who went to Denmark to persuade the king of Denmark (by force of arms if necessary) to resume payment of tribute to him. Notice how clearly the following quotes reveal the ISRAELITISH ORIGIN OF THE SCOTCH-IRISH!
On his return [meaning Gwrgant's return to England] as he was passing through the Orkney Isles, he came up with thirty ships, which were full of men and women; and finding them there, he seized their chief, whose name was Barthlome. Thereupon this chief prayed for protection, telling him that they "were called Barclenses," had been driven from Spain, and were roving on the seas to find a place of settlement; and that he therefore entreated Gwrgant to grant them permission to abide in some part of the island [of England] as they had been at sea for a year and a half. Gwrgant [King of England] having thus learned whence they were, and what was their purpose, directed them with his goodwill to go to Ireland, which at that time lay waste and uninhabited. Thither therefore they went, and there they settled, and peopled the country; and their descendants are to this day in Ireland (ibid., p. 60).
A very interest footnote referring to this Israelitish Chief, "BARTHLOME" says:
"He [Barthlome the chief of the 30 ships] had his name from a river of Spain called Eirinnal, on the banks of which they had lived. This chief related to the king the whole of their adventures, from the time they had been driven from Israel (Palestine) their original country, and the manner and circumstances in which their ancestors dwelt in a retired part of Spain, near the Eirnia, from whence the Spaniards drove them to sea to seek another abode" (ibid., fn., p. 60).
Notice here were thirty shiploads of people, who according to their chief, Barthlome (a good Hebrew name) had come from ISRAEL, their original country, and had first gone to Spain. After having been driven from Spain, they came to the Orkney Islands, and were there directed by Gwrgant, the King of England, to go on to Ireland, where they permanently settled! This is one more vital link of historical proof, connecting some of the ancient people of Ireland (who, in other accounts are called "Milesian Scots") directly with their original homeland of Israel in Palestine! Some people would treat this very old historical reference to the early British settlers of these islands as mere fable; but a number of prophecies reveal that many of the Israelites would settle in the isles in North-west Europe.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECLARATION OF ARBROATH
Perhaps the most prized historical document in possession of the Scottish nation is their historic "Declaration of Arbroath," otherwise called "The Scottish Declaration of Independence" (written in 1320 A.D.). This document is proudly displayed at the Register House, Edinburgh, Scotland. In the years preceding 1320 A.D. there had been continual wars between England and Scotland. Under Robert Bruce, king of the Scots, the English were on many occasions defeated in battle.
By 1313 only the castle of Stirling remained in the hands of the English. Edward II set out (1314) to relieve the castle; Lancaster and the baronichal party refused to support the expedition. At Bannockburn (1314) Edward was overwhelmingly defeated, and Scottish independence won (Langer, An Ency. of World History, p.264).
But wars continued between England and Scotland. Edward II finally appealed to the Pope at Rome, the international arbiter during the Middle Ages, to support him against Robert Bruce, King of Scotland. Edward asked the Pope to persuade Robert the Bruce to acknowledge the sovereignty of the King of England. The Pontiff sent a letter with special representatives from the "Holy See" to persuade Robert Bruce to acknowledge the overlordship of Edward II, king of England. Following are some excerpts from the reply of Robert Bruce and his barons to the Pope:
We know and gather from ancient Acts and the Records, that in every famous nation, this of Scotland hath been celebrated with many praises. This nation, having come from Scythia the Greater, through the Tuscan Sea and the Hercules Pillars, and having for many ages taken its residence in Spain in the midst of most fierce people, could never be brought in subjection by any people how barbarous soever; and having removed from these parts, above 1200 years after the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt, did by many victories and much toil obtain these parts in the West which they still possess, having expelled the British and entirely rooted out the Picts, notwithstanding the frequent assaults and invasions they met with from the Norwegians, Danes and English. (Scottish Declaration of Independence).
The foregoing excerpts from the Declaration of Arbroath were taken from a translation printed by Gordon Wilson, Edinburgh, second edition, February 1951. Another similar translation of this historic document may be found in Scots Magazine, April 1934, pp. 16-18. There are a number of important points worth noting in regard to this document. First, this document was addressed to Pope John XXII, and signed by the Scottish barons and ecclesiastics of Robert Bruce in Parliament at Arbroath Abbey, April 1320. Secondly, the Declaration of Arbroath shows conclusively that the Scots came from Scythia through Spain and finally to Scotland. Their arrival in Scotland, according to this Declaration, was 291 B.C. or 1,200 years after the Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt. The Exodus occurred, according to Archbishop Usher's Chronology, circa 1491 B.C. Subtract 1,200 years from that date, and it will bring you to about 291 B.C. when the Scots, according to their own records, must have first gone to Scotland. They had, however, lived in Ireland for some time before going to Scotland. Thirdly, notice the Scots mention directly the Exodus of the people of Israel. Why did they mention this Exodus unless they were part of the people of Israel who had taken part in this Exodus? They mentioned the Exodus because it was a memorable occasion in their national history. We have already seen that these Milesian Scots who first went to Ireland definitely claimed that their "chieftans (were) connected by friendship with the prophet Moses himself" (Moore, History of Ireland, Vol. I, p. 71). Who were the only chieftans connected by friendship with the prophet Moses? This can only refer to the Princes or chieftans of the tribes of Israel with whom Moses continually dealt in the long trek from Egypt to the wilderness of Sinai! Yes, Moses had dealt with these self-willed and stiff-necked Scots, who were at the time of the Exodus included under the banner of Joseph. We noticed that these Milesian Scots were not only connected with the prophet Moses, but they were connected "by marriage or friendship... with most of the heroes of Scripture history."
From thence [the plain of Shenaar] tracing this chosen race in their migrations to different countries, and connecting them, by marriage or friendship, during their long sojourn in Egypt, with most of the heroes of Scripture history (Moore, History of Ireland, Vol. I, p. 61).
These "heroes" of Scripture can only refer to such leaders as Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samson, David, and others. These "Milesian Scots" knew their past history had been directly connected with the Bible heroes already mentioned. Were these Milesian Scots descendants from Japheth, as many misguided historians would have us believe?
I confess that but for the universal tradition which assigns our descent to Japheth, I should have been rather inclined to attribute to the British Celts a Semitic origin (Lysons, Our British Ancestors, p. 18).
Remember the Milesian Scots were "Scythians" and also bear in mind that the Celts were merely a branch of the Scythian people.
ORIGIN OF THE TARTAN
In the reign of Achy, who succeeded Tighernmas in Ireland, a law was passed regulating the number of colours by which the garments of the different classes of society were to be distinguished. Plebeians and soldiers were to have but ONE colour in their dress; military officers of an inferior rank, TWO; commanders of battalions, THREE; the keepers of houses of hospitality, FOUR; the nobility and military knights, FIVE; and the Bards and Ollamhs, who were distinguished for learning, SIX; being but one colour less than the number (seven) worn by the reigning princes!
These regulations are curious; not only as showing the high station alloted to learning and talent, among the qualifications, for distinction, but as presenting a coincidence rather remarkable with that custom of patriarchal times which made a garment of many colours the appropriate dress of kings' daughters and princes... From the party-coloured garments worn by the ancient Scots, or Irish, is derived the national fashion of the plaid, still prevailing among their descendants in Scotland (Moore, History of Ireland, pp. 85, 86).
There existed also among the Celts of Gaul a fancy for garments with all varieties of colour. Their braccae, or breeches were so name because of their plaided pattern; the Celtic word 'brac' denoting anything speckled or "party-coloured." The historian, Tacitus, describes the Gaulish dress as including breeches and a plaid mantle (ibid., fn. p. 85). Thus JACOB made a coat of many colours for his son, JOSEPH (Gen.37:3) and Tamar, one of David's daughters, wore a garment of diverse colours as was customary for kings' daughters that were virgins (II Sam. 13:18). It is interesting to note that, to this very day, the Scots have a "Jacobite Tartan" which may be worn by anyone not having a clan tartan of his own (Bain, The Clans and Tartans of Scotland, pp. 286, 287). It is not by coincidence that the tartan is still a garment of pride among some of the descendants of Josephthe present-day Scots!
THE ORIGIN OF THE SAXONS
There is another name mentioned on the Behistun Rock Inscriptionsthe name Saka (in the Persian language), or according to Professor Rawlinson, Sacae, (in the Susian language Sakka). Is this name "Saka" connected with the people of Israel? It certainly is! We are informed by the Bible that the descendants of Israel were known as Israelites. The suffix "ite" means "son of." The descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob were likewise called after the names of the twelve Patriarchal Fathers. The sons of Levi were called Levites, the descendants of Benjamin were called Benjaminites and the children of Dan were called Danites, and so on.
THE SONS OF ISAAC
Were the descendants of Isaac never called after his name? "And God said unto Abraham, 'Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad [Ishmael Abraham's firstborn son], and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah has said unto thee, hearken unto her voice, because in ISAAC shall thy seed be called" (Gen. 21:12). Notice also that this same statement is repeated twice in the New Testament. See Romans 9:7 and Hebrews 11:18. Why did God solemnly declare in three different places in the Bible that Abraham's seed would be called after the name of Isaac, if he did not mean exactly what He said? Where (and how) in history were the progeny of Abraham and Isaac ever called after the name of ISAAC? The names "Saxon," "Saksun," "Sakaisuna," and "sons of Sacae" all definitely refer to the "sons of Isaac."
THE "I" HAS BEEN DROPPED
It is quite common in some languages to drop the initial syllable from a word. Dr. Schrader points out that the Assyrians dropped the "i" when they spoke of an Israelite. "Ahab is called by Shalmanessar II A-HA-AB-BU SIR-'-LAI i.e. 'Ahab of Israel' in an inscription discovered on the banks of the Tigris..." (The Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Old Testament, Vol.I pp.137,138). This is undoubtedly what has happened in regard to the Isaac-sons (Saxon). The "i" has been dropped and the basic part of the word "sak" or "sac" has been retained. "Son" simply means son of. So the word "Saxons" means "sons of (I)SAC" or "sons of Isaac." Later, we shall see quotations from reliable historical sources proving that "Saxon" derives from "sons of Sac" or "sons of Sak" meaning "sons of Isaac." In the days of the Judges, the Ephraimites could not sound the "h" in the word "Shibboleth." During a struggle between Israelitish factions, the inability of the Ephraimites to pronounce the "h" cost many of them their lives. Speaking of fugitive Ephraimites we read: "Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand" (Judges 12:6). Many Hebrew-speaking Jews have difficulty pronouncing their "h's" to this day. Why do we all say "Semitic" instead of "Shemitic"? Is it not because the "h" has been dropped in this word? It is quite common among many of the people of the British Isles even today, to drop an initial letter in some words. This is especially true of the letter "h", which is often dropped by many English-speaking people who live in Great Britain. "Where did I 'ang me 'at?"a friend of mine once asked. And our plumber told me one day, that it was " 'air" which had stopped up our drain. He had to repeat himself several times before it was realised that he meant "hair" instead of "air".
THE ANGLO-SAXONS DESCENDANTS OF SHEM
Before we pursue further the derivation of the word "Sacae", we will consider historical evidence proving that the Anglo-Saxon peoples have descended from Shem. We have already noted that Lysons made this confession:
I confess that but for the universal tradition which assigns our [the British] descent to Japhet, I should have been rather inclined to attribute to the British Celts a Semitic origin, both on account of the relics of worship which we find in Britain, and also on account of the language..." (Our British Ancestors, p. 18).
Lysons then shows that there are literally thousands of words in the English language which come from the Hebrew language (ibid., p. 21 ff.). He says:
Thus I propose to show in the course of these pages when we come to the relics of British worship remaining in the country, and retaining with little variation or corruption their aboriginal names, the remarkable similarity between those names and the HEBREW and CHALDEE languages" (ibid., p.21).
He then points out that many of the "old British families" have Hebrew names. "Now, whatever may be the historical value of the Welsh poems, it is undoubted that Talies in his Angar Cyfyndawd, says that his lore had been 'DECLARED IN HEBREW, Hebraig...'" (ibid., p. 22). On page 93 of this same work, Lysons says:
Yet this we gather from the names attaching to the British monuments still remaining among us, when divested of modern corruptions, 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 in this island" (ibid., p. 93).
Lysons then proceeds to show the similarity between many ancient British and Hebrew words, and between the corrupted religion of the Palestinian Israelites and that of the ancient British people. Lysons finally makes this startling statement:
We cannot avoid the conclusion that 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 (ibid., pp. 93, 94).
It has already been clearly pointed out that the early British ancestors said they came from Armenia in the area of the Caucasus Mountains; and we know that many of them arrived in the British Isles centuries before Christ's birth. Robert Owen also substantiates this view by the following statement:
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 of referring Welsh to the language of Moses as its fountain (The Kymry, pref. v., vi.).
For any who still might have any lingering doubts regarding the similarity between the Hebrew and the early British languages which were used by its ancient peoples, one need only study the present-day Welsh language. There are many strong similarities between modern Welsh and Hebrew. Even one who is unskilled in the science of languages cannot fail to detect a close similarity between the spoken Hebrew language when contrasted with modern Welsh. Many Welsh words are almost devoid of any vowels whatsoever, just as the ancient Hebrew language was written without any vowels. A number of books have been written besides the ones mentioned here which show the close affinity between the languages as spoken by some of the early British peoples and the Hebrew language. As an example of some modern Welsh names with few written vowels, here is part of the address of a friend of mine. The name is fictitious, however. Nathan Evans, Tyddyn Valley, Llanddoget, Llanrwst, Denbighshire. Notice that the anglicized words have far more vowels written in them than do such words as "Llanrwst." We have already observed that it has been commonly taught that the British have descended from Japheth. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Here is proof that the British have descended from Shem, and are therefore Semitic (Shemitic).
Alfred, king of the Anglo-Saxons, was born in the year of our Lord's incarnation eight hundred and forty-nine... King Alfred was the son of Geata... This Geata was the son of... Heremod... the son of Sem (Church Historians of England, Annals of Exploits of Alfred Great, Vol. II, pp. 443-44).
We have noticed that Alfred the Great, king of the Anglo-Saxons was a descendant of "Sem." This same quotation continues as folows: "Heremod... the son of Sem, the son of Noe, the son of Lamech, the son of Methusalem, the son of Enoch, the son of Malaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam" (ibid.). Alfred the Great, who was himself a Saxon (son of Isaac), traced his genealogy right back to "Sem" (or Shem) and on back to Adam.
So the Anglo-Saxons may well have had records of the ancestry of their kings, beginning with Sceaf... and calling Sceaf the son of Noe, born in the ark, or even identifying him with the patriarch Shem (Haigh, The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons, Chapter III, p. 115).
Haigh makes the grave mistake that many others do. Many simply cannot believe the plain records of the ancient peoples who came to the British Isles! They just can't possibly believe that these peoples could really have been descendents of Shem. We shall notice the same tendency for critics of early Scotch-Irish history. They think the early history (which they call folklore) of these peoples cannot be true when it connects such peoples directly with the lands and peoples mentioned in the Bible. We shall see in a later chapter that the Scythians, who were the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons, spoke a language that had a strong similarity with Hebrew. Should this fact amaze us? It should not cause any alarm, especially when one sees that these Scythian peoples came from the regions of the Caucasus Mountains not long after they were taken as captives to that general area by the Assyrian kings in 741, 721 B.C. Time does not permit us to give the innumerable similarities between the early British words and the Hebrew; but consider the words "British" (Heb. covenant man), and "Britain" (Heb. covenant land). All of the early British languages had many points in common with the Hebrew language.
WHO WERE THE SACAE?
The Bible had prophesied, as we have already observed, "In ISAAC shall thy seed be called" (Gen. 21:12). Have you ever known of any people being called after Isaac? It might be well to point out here that the Persians spoke of all the people of Scythia as the Sacae or Sakka, because the Sacae were a branch of the Scythian people who dwelt nearest to them. Modern research confirms conclusively that the Sacae were a very important branch of the people who were called by the name of Scythians. A very reliable historical account of the Anglo-Saxons, by Sharon Turner, gives a number of salient points regarding the Anglo-Saxons. It is so important that it is here given verbatim:
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, who mentions this, speaks of them as among the most distinguished people of Scythia (Pliny, lib. vi. c.19). Strabo places them eastward of the Caspian... (The History of The Anglo-Saxons, Vol. I, p.87).
Note that Turner shows the Sacae were an important branch of the Scythian nation. They lived to the east of the Caspian Sea. According to Turner, these Scyths (Sacae) seized the most fertile part of Armenia! Also observe that this was the same general area (Armenia) to which Israel had been deported.
This important fact of a part of ARMENIA having been named Sakasina, is mentioned by Strabo in another place (Strabo, p.124), 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 must have come into Armenia from the northern regions of Persia (ibid., p. 87).
Turner says that "our primeval [Saxon] ancestors" went into Armenia from northern Persia. This again shows the general vicinity of Israel's dispersion. This quote from Turner is so significant that it must be given in toto:
That some of the divisions of this people were really called SAKASUNA, is obvious from Pliny; for he says that the SAKAI, who settled in Armenia, were named SACASSANI (Pliny. lib. vi. c.11); which is but SAKASUNA spelt by a person unacquainted with the meaning of the combined words. And the name SACASENA (Strabo. lib. Xi. pp. 776, 778), which they gave to the part of Armenia they occupied, is nearly the same sound as SAXONIA. It is also important to remark, that Ptolemy mentions a Scythian people sprung from the Sakai, by the name of SAXONES. If the Sakai who reached Armenia were called Saca-sani, they may have traversed Europe with the same appellation; which being pronounced by the Romans from them, and then reduced to writing from their pronunciation, may have been spelt with the x instead of the ks, and thus SAXONS would not be a greater variation from SACASSANI or SAKSUNA than we find between French, Francois, Franci, and their Greek name, Phraggi; or between Spain, Espagne, Hispania (ibid., p.88).
Turner is undoubtedly correct in saying that the "ks" was changed to an "x." These variations of the word Sacae (or Saka) are not any greater, says Turner, than the variations of names for such modern nations as France and Spain (ibid. pp.87, 88, 95). He then says that Ptolemy placed another people, the Sasones, north of the Sacae. These have been selected as our ancestors... Sasones, Sacaesons, Saxones (ibid., fn., p. 95). Turner then mentions that some of these marauding Sakai or Saca-sana were, in all probability, gradually propelled to the west coast of Europe, on which they were found by Ptolemy, and from which they made incursions into the Roman Empire, in the third century A.D. A people known as the Saxoi, lived on the Black Sea, according to Stephanus (Stephanus de urb. et Pop. p. 657). "We may," says Turner, "consider these, also, as a nation of the same parentage." These Sakai wandered far and wide from Asia to the German Ocean. He also points out the traditional descent of Odin as preserved by Snorre in the Edda and his history which represents the Saxon and Scandinavian chieftans as having migrated from a city, east of the Tanais, called Asgard, located in a country called Asaland, meaning the city and the land of the Asae or Asians (Snorre Ynlinga Saga, c. 2. and 5). Thus, we see that Turner equated the Sacae with Odin and his people, the Asae, from Asgard, north of the Black Seathe very area where we find many of the Israelites located shortly after their exile (ibid., pp. 88, 89).
But that 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, q.d. 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, in which the human race had both its rise and increase... (Camden, Britannia, Vol. I, p. 151).
Camden seems to completely agree with Turner in identifying such peoples as: Saxons, Sacae, Sacasones, ("sons of the Sacae"), Saci, q.d. Sassones, Sacasena. Note that they came "from Scythia." He says that "these people kept almost as near to one another in Europe" as they had before in Asia.
The Sacae, who are Scythians, had on their heads caps, which came to a point and stood erect: they wore loose trousers, and carried bows peculiar to their country... These, though they are Amyrgian Scythians, they call Sacae, for the Persians call all the Scythians Sacae (Herod., Polymnia, Bo. VII, par. 64).
From Herodotus' statements, we can see that the Sacae were actually a Scythian tribe. Herodotus called them "Amyrgian Scythians." According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Angli or Angles were merely a branch of the Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons invaded England in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries A.D. (Ency. Brit. 11th ed., Vol. XXIV, Art. Saxons, pp. 264, 265). We shall later have occasion to refer to the Sacae or Saxons as we study the Scythian and other tribes. Here is a final quotation that clearly shows that "Saxon" is derived from "sons of Sacae." Milton says that the Saxons were a heathen and a barbarous nation, famous for their robberies and cruelties done to all their neighbours, both by land and sea.
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, thence called Sacasons, or sons of Sacae, who with a flood of other northern nations came into Europe, Toward the declining of the Roman Empire (History of England, 1835 ed., Bk. III, pp. 406, 407).
Notice how many different historians equate the Scythians with the Sacae; and also note how many show that the "Sacasons" (or Saxons) were "sons of Sacae" ((I)saac)! The Saxons are descendants of Isaac. "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" (Gen. 21:12). It is primarily through the Saxons that this prophecy has been (and is still being) fulfilled!
Copyright © 2024 Herbert W Armstrong Library