Brit-Am Research Sources (18 October, 2013, Cheshvan 14, 5774)
Contents:
1. Tuatha de Danaan from Israel; Connected to Milesians
2. Sceaf (Scyld) and His Descendants: Langobards, Imbers, Zealand, Geats
3. Completeness of the Exile. Another Source
Was All of Ancient Israel Really Carried Captive? by Lawson C Briggs, June 1974
====
====
1. Tuatha de Danaan from Israel; Connected to Milesians
Fact to Fiction: How the Tuatha de Danaan of History Became the Fairies of Contemporary Fantasy.
by William Kerwin and Katelyn
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/10845
[forwarded by Mark Williams]
Extracts:
Introduction:
Despite the writings and claims of the early Christian historians, many modern historians
such as O'Curry and O'Rahilly still believed and wrote that the Irish race is made up of many
different Celtic races, similar in characteristics and society, if not similar in physical appearance,
that had migrated to Ireland at different times (O'Curry, 29-51, O'Rahilly, 15). O'Rahilly wrote
that there were three previous invaders of Ireland: the Priteni, the Firbolg, and the Tuatha De
Danaan (15).
O'Curry, Eugene. The Manuscript Materials of Ancient Irish History. Vol. 1 and 2. Dublin: Burt
Franklin, 1861. Print. Ser. 87.
O'Rahilly, Thomas Francis. Early Irish History and Mythology. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced
Studies, 1946. Print.
The Firbolg were addressed by historians such as MacManus, O'Curry, Raftery,
MacNeill, and Bourke as the invaders directly previous to the Tuatha de Danaan.
Bourke, Ulick J. Pre-Christian Ireland. Dublin: Brown and Nolan, 1887. Print.
MacManus, Seumas. The Story of the Irish Race. 4th ed. Greenwich, CT: Devin-Adair, 1921. Print.
MacNeill Eoin, and Corrain Donnchadh. O. Celtic Ireland. Dublin: Academy in Association with the
Medieval Academy of Ireland, 1981. Print.
The Milesians that the early Christians referred to, then came and invaded Ireland some 800 years after the
Tuatha de Danaan at or around one-thousand years before Christ (MacManus 7).
The coming of the Tuatha de Danaan has been
placed as early as 3500 years before Christ (Somerset Fry 2-3) and as late as the third century
before Christ (MacNeill 2-5). MacManus and O'Flaherty recorded in their writing that the
Tuatha de Danaan came around 1800 years before Christ (MacManus 7).
Many historians believe that the Tuatha de Danaan are descended from Egypt, Israel, and
Syria. MacManus, O'Donovan, and O'Curry all support that the Tuatha de Danaan originally
came from the Middle East, through central Europe to land in Ireland (Bourke 92, MacManus 7,
O'Curry 29-51).
... Bourke who explained that various inscriptions found in Ireland match the inscriptions of the Hebrews found in the Valley
of Sinai (93) and by Ptolemy's explanation and history of Ireland as reported by O'Rahilly (1-
43).
When the Tuatha de Danaan first came to Ireland, O'Rahilly and MacManus wrote that
they landed in Ireland in what is now the western part of the province of Connacht (O'Rahilly
95, MacManus 2). When the Tuatha de Danaan landed in Connacht they were not alone.
Instead, they had to face the previous invaders: the Firbolgs. At a battle on the Mayo-Galway
border, MacManus accounted that the Tuatha de Danaan eventually conquered the previous
inhabitants and gave the defeated Firbolgs the western half of the country, particularly the
inhospitable Connacht (4). The Tuatha de Danaan in turn migrated to the more prosperous lands
of Leinster.
O'Rahilly used evidence of the Tuatha de Danaan names still in use at his time of
writing in the sixteenth century as evidence that the Tuatha de Danaan did not stay in Connacht,
but migrated to what is now Leinster and took over the hill at Tara in county Meath (92).
Many European scholars along with MacManus wrote that the Tuatha de Danaan then
placed the defeated Firbolgs into a feudal society where the Tuatha de Danaan were the highest
leaders (MacManus 7).
O'Rahilly believes this tradition was then followed by the next
conquering race, the Milesians, as they placed the Tuatha de Danaan under their own aristocracy,
often-times as sword-hands and mercenaries (95). The Tuatha de Danaan were conquered by the
Milesians and MacManus had this as the time of the reign of the Dagda's children, but no other
historian states this same opinion (5).
Bourke showed evidence found in Gilbert, Sullivan,
O'Donovan, and O'Curry's writing that the Tuatha de Danaan had a hierarchy made up of poets,
healers, generals and leaders, Druids, Brehons (judges), and priests. The Brehons and priests
ruled the judicial system where their word was law and none could dispute it, not even the high
king. Due to this high standing, the Brehons held a revered place in the minds of the people. The
Druids many times worked as advisors to the kings and as healers (88-95).
MacManus supported
by his interpretation of O'Curry's writing, stated that the Tuatha de Danaan held a complex
feudal system made up of their people and those they had conquered (MacManus 2, O'Curry 1-
228). According to MacManus, the high king of Ireland resided at Tara in county Meath. The
high king ruled over everyone but the Brehons and could have no personal blemish, for the
people believed that the high king must be as perfect in physical condition as possible2.
Underneath the high king were the lower kings that ruled various sized realms throughout the
country. The Firbolgs who resided in Connacht and the lower kings of the Tuatha de Danaan
paid tribute in the form of coins, livestock, and bronze workings to the high king, as well as
contributing to the fighting forces by providing men (MacManus 2).
The Tuatha de Danaan appear to have been civilized and to have had a significant understanding of many of
the arts and sciences.
Bourke, based on evidence by Sullivan, Gilbert, O'Donovan, and O'Curry,
claimed that the very name 'Dana' is a synonym for skills in science and literary achievement
(91).
MacManus and O'Curry then went on to claim that the Tuatha de Danaan were highly
skilled in such crafts as bronze and iron making as well as the domestic arts such as medicine
(MacManus 2).
Not only were the Tuatha de Danaan advanced in the arts and sciences, but Bourke reenforced
the writings of O'Curry, Sullivan, O'Donovan, and Gilbert in restating their belief that
the Tuatha de Danaan had the written word and had an understanding of literary knowledge
====
====
2. Sceaf (Scyld) and His Descendants: Langobards, Imbers, Zealand, Geats
From what I understand there were at least four discrete Sceaf traditions mentioned in various literary sources. One of these addressed the mythical Sceaf of the Langobards and another Sceaf-there ruler of the Imbers. The Imbers may have represent a remnant polulation of the classical Ambrones that remained in southern Jutland. Next was the Sceaf who was apparently the forefather of Scyld; the husband of the goddess Gefjon, legendary master of Lejre, and high chieftain of Zealand. Finally the fourth tradition posits a Sceaf as the ancestor of the Heroic ruler of the Geats also named Scyld.
Starling
====
====
3. Completeness of the Exile. Another Source
Was All of Ancient Israel Really Carried Captive? by Lawson C. Briggs, June 1974
[forwarded by Craig White]
Extracts:
The ancient united nation of Israel was divided into two nations, called Israel and Judah, almost immediately after the death of Solomon. This division came about as a God-ordained punishment for Solomon's disobedience. Rehoboam, Solomon's son, triggered the actual split by refusing to lighten the Israelites' heavy tax load. Indeed, he threatened to make it much heavier. As a result most of the tribes revolted (I Kings 12)
From that time on, four whole books of the Bible detail the separate national histories of the House of Israel (the so-called ten tribes) and the House of Judah. But the House of Israel ceased as a nation when it was completely overrun by Assyria in 721-718 B.C.
The Bible records: "In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria [Israel's capital city], and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.... And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes" (II Kings 17:6; 18:11).
But were all the people really removed? A contrary view is expressed by the late archaeologist William F. Albright: "We now know that the Israelites continued to occupy most of [the allotment of] Ephraim and parts of Galilee and Gilead, and that there were Israelite minorities in Ammon, Syria and Phoenicia" (The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra, p. 74).
But how do "we know" this? And how long after the Assyrian conquest may some of Israel have remained in the Promised Land?
While we may grant the possibility of individuals having found asylum in Ammon, Syria, Tyre, etc., the evidence is that no significant number of Israelites in Israel ultimately escaped the Assyrian dragnet.
Probably the best-known extra biblical account of deportation from Israel is found in the annals of the Assyrian king Sargon: "At the beginning of my royal rule, I... [conquered] the town of the Samarians... I besieged and conquered Samaria (Sa-me-re-na), led away as booty 27,290 inhabitants of it. I formed from among them a contingent of 50 chariots and made remaining inhabitants assume their social positions" (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, third edition, edited by James B. Pritchard, p. 284). Here only 27,290 people were taken, all specifically said to be from the capital city. Evidently others in the city at that time were left behind. But this is only what Sargon did in his first year.
The fragmentary annals of King Tiglathpileser III tell us: "... -nite, Gal'za [Gilead?], Abilakka [the plain of the upper Jordan River] which are adjacent to Israel (Bit Hu-um-ri-a [the House of Omri, Assyrian name for the House of Israel since the days of powerful King Omri]) and the wide land of Naphtali, in its full extent, I united with Assyria. Officers of mine I installed as governors upon them.... All its inhabitants and their possessions I led to Assyria. They [the people of the remaining western regions of the kingdom] overthrew their king Pekah and I placed Hoshea as king over them..." (ibid., pp. 283, 284).
Notice in this case that the entire population of Israel east of the Jordan, in the upper valley and as far south as Galilee, was removed.
Parallel Bible accounts word it: "And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria [the Babylonian and Assyrian names of the same king], and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day" (I Chron. 5:26).
And also: "In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria" (II Kings 15:29).
About half of the House of Israel had been taken away as a result of this earlier invasion. Sargon removed an additional number. And the removal process continued yet for many years.
The Bible tells us that the Assyrians brought other settlers to Palestine to replace the vanished Israelites, "men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvairn, and placed them in the cities of Samaria..." (II Kings 17:24).
Sargon warred with the Arabs of the desert. "Upon a trust-inspiring oracle given by my lord Ashur, I crushed the tribes of Tamud, Ibadidi, Marsimanu, and Haiapa, the Arabs who live far away in the desert and who know neither overseers nor officials and who had not yet brought their tribute to any king. I deported their survivors and settled them in Samaria" (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, op. cit., p. 286).
Perhaps those "survivors" were few. And the native-born Israelites continued to be deported, for the land became seriously under-populated. Then, with no one to keep them in check, predatory wild animals increased drastically. The later-arriving. Samaritans found them to be a dangerous plague (II Kings 17:26).
Numbers of people from the northern territory came south to Jerusalem to keep the great Passover of King Hezekiah of Judah (II Chron. 30:10-11, 18). But a comparison of II Chronicles 29:3 with II Kings 18:9-10 shows this occurred three years before the siege of Samaria.
Why does II Chronicles 30:6 speak of the Northerners as the "remnant of you, that are escaped out of the hand of the kings of Assyria"? These people had escaped that first great deportation of nearly half the nation performed by Tiglath-pileser. Note that these people went back home after the Passover (II Chron. 31:1).
Were there, however, say 20 years later, still Israelites in their land? Certainly there were. Sennacherib, king of Assyria, mentions a "Menahem of Samsimuruna", obviously an Israelite, among other rebelling rulers in the lands of Israel, the Philistines and Phoenicia (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, op. cit., p. 287).
As a result of this rebellion, Sennacherib marched his army back into the area, mopped up the opposition and even besieged Jerusalem. Though God delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem out of his hand, he also swept into captivity over 200,000 Jews from the surrounding parts of Judah. No doubt the rebels of Israel were also taken away.
Before the captivities began, the Prophet Isaiah had prophesied this result: "And in that day it shall come to pass, that the glory of Jacob [Israel] shall be made thin.... And it shall be as when the harvestman gathereth the corn" "[the harvesters (Assyrian conquerors) will have gathered everyone, except for a few in hiding they might accidentally miss].... Yet gleaning grapes shall be left in it, as the shaking of an olive tree, two or three berries in the top of the uppermost bough; four or five in the outmost fruitful branches thereof, saith the Lord God of Israel. At that day shall a man [those who are left] look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel... In that day shall his strong cities be as a forsaken bough... " (Isa. 17:4-9).
As late as Asshurbanipal, whose reign over Assyria spanned the middle of the 600's B.C., additional settlers were being brought in to replace the now totally missing Israelites. "... The Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper [Asshurbanipal] brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria..." (Ezra 4:9-10).
This may be an indication that the final contingent of Israel had been removed only shortly before.
A scant generation later, Ezekiel recorded the attitude of Judah toward the lands formerly occupied by Israel: "Again the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, thy brethren, even thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far [geographically] from the Lord: unto us is this land given in possession." They wanted to possess that land.
"Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord God; Although I have cast them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary [that is, God would watch over them for good] in the countries where they shall come" (Ezek. 11:14-16).
They never returned. And when later the nation of Judah was taken away too, the Jewish people were placed in a different location in the Babylonian Empire, not including the areas of Israel's captivity. Those areas in Assyria had become part of the Median Empire.
The Israelites were carried away "unto this day" (I Chron. 5:26), the time when the books of Chronicles were written after the return of the Jews under Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah.
Josephus was able to report: "... Wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers" (Antiquities, book XI, chapter V, section 2).
This is further confirmation that the houses of Israel and Judah were still not united even as late as the first century A.D.
Though it is prophesied to occur in the future (Ezek. 37), the House of Israel and the House of Judah have never been reunited.