"The Angles of England," by Paul Porter (22 March 2016, 12 Adar-B, 5776)
Dear Mr Davidiy,
I have read both Ancestry
I have, in the main, focused my attention on England. I am attempting to ascertain if England is indeed of the tribe of Ephraim.
Whilst there is still differing opinions amongst researchers as to the exact detail, there is also general acceptance that there were migratory pathways into England over many centuries. These migrations did impact upon the British Isles (and lreland) as a whole but l wish to maintain my focus on England. Referring to the period from circa 450 up to 1100 CE. It has been established that Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians migrated from the Jutland Peninsula of Northern Europe in successive waves over a span of around 200 years (from 450 CE.). There then followed a 300 year span (from around 800 CE.) whereby there were incursions by large numbers of people from Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Geatland. The former only affecting England and the latter mainly affecting England (but also the rest of the British lsles). It is also an established historical fact that it was the people known as the Angles from which we have the name England. Lastly, it has been well documented that the Norman (of Norse Ancestry) invasion of 1066 was rapid and brutal and again, mainly affected England (not withstanding the later Norman incursions in Wales and the south of Scotland). In fact, to this day, the Normans (that is their offspring) are still the majority landowners within the British Isles as a consequence of 1066!
Referring to Ancestry, the bulk of the information is concerned with the earlier inhabitants of the British Isles. The Celtic people. It encompasses the period from the people formally known as the 'grooved wear ' people (based on the decoration of their pottery) to the period of the people formally known as 'bell beaker' ( based on the shape of their pottery). Much of this work has been gleamed from the legends and mythology of the Irish and Welsh annals. Some from the earliest Scottish works. As you have concluded from your studies of these early chronicles, parallels can be drawn that point to the telling of the same story by the different authors of each work. Legends can indeed contain facts.
There is general agreement amongst researchers that Halstatt, and the later La T'ene culture, spread to the British lsles, via Europe, from the Black Sea region. It is also accepted that the farming practices that these cultures introduced into the British Isles originated from the Levant area of the Middle East. These two accepted facts form the basis of the central plank that posits the connection to the migratory pathways of the lost ten tribes of Israel. That is, outside of Biblical reasoning. Now, of course, there were other people living in the greater Middle East area who were of both Semitic and none Semitic origin. I do however agree with your reasoning. That is to say to look for a large number of people that had a sufficient reason to migrate in large numbers. As there is no documented natural disaster mentioned during the period covering the migratory pathways of the lost ten tribes in the Levant region, then the next logical step is to seek a man made disaster. The Assyrian invasion and the subsequent eviction of tens of thousands of people (after many of their kith and kin were slaughtered) offers a very good reason for migration. At this point, it could reasonably be argued that the evicted people of lsrael should have attempted a reconciliation with their kith and kin in Judah rather than continue their journeys northward and westward. However, as l could only speculate as to this, l will not elaborate on this reasoning further.
Returning back to England as Ephraim, here lies the conundrum. It seems to me that you are inferring that England is of Ephraim for maybe two central reasons.
Firstly, as it was the Angles who settled in large numbers in England (you have connected the Angles with Ephraim?). Secondly, as it was England that drove through the changes (by both force and diplomacy) that formed the Act of Union - that led to the British Empire, the birth of the USA and the formation of the Commonwealth of Nations? The latter has its basis in historical fact. However, it is still enigmatic how a nation that underwent continual change for 1700 years: Roman occupation and suppression; the periods of migration and incursions mentioned earlier ie Angles, Vikings and Normans, the heavy loss of life during the periods of the plagues (which also impacted the whole of Europe), the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the English civil war - managed to 'punch' way above its weight on the world stage!
Of course, Bible students could point to that England had to have been blessed to fulfill it's destiny. Given how the odds were stacked against England achieving stability let alone anything of merit in world history. It is just that it did achieve. It has been successful in the arts, in battle, in design, engineering, in literature, in science etc. Maybe this should be sufficient evidence for all to see the hidden hand of G-d at work. I am, however, seeking evidence that can be uncovered from the historical accounts. After all, why should Ireland or Scotland or Wales not be blessed to the same extent as England? Yes, they have indeed received blessings but England was raised above its kith and kin. This is maybe part of the thinking as to why there is enmity between these brothers. Of course, there is the injustices that England has shown to his brothers. England is generic and not entirely without it's own discord. The experiences of the people of the North East of England the past 2000 years does not make for a good fit with a people that have been blessed! But that is a discussion for another time.
Paul David Porter.
Let us try to clarify the issue:
Elements from all the Ten Tribes congregated in the British Isles.
The Tribes of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) were predominant among them.
Roughly speaking Ephraim was more to the east and south, Manasseh to the north and west. Later Manasseh became dominant in the USA.
There were however exceptions with groups from Ephraim (e.g. the Uladah in Ulster, from Eladah of Ephraim 1-Chronicles 7:20 ) in other areas of Britain.
We on the whole do identify the Angles as Ephraim.
A more complete explanation is to be found in our work "The Tribes."
The Angles were also known as "Aegloi." The name Angli is in effect a dialectic variation of the Hebrew "Aegel" both in Biblical Hebrew and the languages of Northern Europe.
Aegel in Hebrew means "bull-calf." It was a nickname for Ephraim.
The very name England (Angle-Land) in effect means "Land of the Bull-Calf" i.e. Land of Ephraim.
As for the distribution of the blessings etc this is a complicated matter.
All the Israelite nations have been blessed and they still are the most blessed nations in the world and relatively speaking have been for a good portion of their history.
Statistics and Brit-Am
In the USA the Scotch-Irish are now probably better off than the Anglos.
In Britain there many wealthy Scotsmen or those of Scottish descent even if they do now live in England.
The Irish suffered much in the past but for a good few decades now they have enjoyed a higher standard of living (on average) than anyone.
The Irish are also (on average) usually much happier than the others no matter what their economic condition.
Blessing are an outcome of inherited right, Biblical values, and means to fulfill goals.