Answers to an Irishman
Continued from Truth of Legend
Contents:
1. Clifford Riley: 2nd E-Mail Replying to our Remarks on the First
2. Replies from Yair
(1) Dictionaries and Differences of Definition
(2) Irish Literacy: Ana or Dana?
(3) Irishmen and Jews
(4) Who is Qualified to Discuss Irish Mythology?
(5) Genealogical Trees and the Suggested Israelite Ancestry of Clifford Riley!
3. New Letter from Clifford
4. Martin Lightfoot (British Israel): Interesting Notes Concerning the Tribe of Dan
5. From Yair, More Points in Reply to an Irate Irishman. The Bottom Line, Is it True or Not?
6. Reply by Clifford Riley followed by Remarks from Yair.
1. Clifford Riley: 2nd E-Mail Replying to our Remarks on the First
Dear Yair,
(1) You state:
# The word "DAN" in Irish is translated into English as "s.m. a poem; science; work; fate; destiny; lot; adj. strenuous, undaunted, dictatorial. #
The word DONN in Irish is translated into English as # a king, a lord, a poet.... #
# We saw that the Irish Dictionary says that Dan can mean (amongst other meanings) "fate; destiny". In Hebrew we have the word root DNH giving us both Dan and Din connoting ruling and judgement and decision. So too, DONN (which in Hebrew would be considered as a related word) in Irish can mean a king, or lord, i.e. someone associated with judgement. #
REPLY
Irish to English, English to Irish, Talbot Press 1989, Republic of Ireland
Don = fate,
Eolaiocht = Science
Donn = brown, bay
English to Irish
Work = obair 2f soathar 1; (businees) gno 4:v. oibrim, saothram, deanaim obair (gno, soathar)
King = ri
Lord = tiarna; The Lord, An Tiarna, Dia
Poet = file
Destiny = ciunniuint 3f, I ndan (do)
If a translation dictionary printed in Ireland by the Irish, doesn't match with an online site. I know which I'd trust, especially when the books translations are the same of those found elsewhere.
-----------------
You state:
The fact that Brehon means judge in Irish does not mean that at some stage there were not other words with the same meaning.
REPLY:
True, but you can't assume that one word was used in past and then claim it to be the present spelling. That's no the basis for any reasoned argument for anything, is student tried that at university how far do you think that would get them?
===
(2) The Irish wrote using Ogham script, these were written on pieces of wood but the coming of Christianity caused them to adopt the Latin Alphabet. The oldest examples are found in Spain and are dated to 800 BC. Whilst the Vikings Sagas contains accounts by the Vikings of them burning libraries.
The Irish High King Cormac Mac Art (254-277) is credited with writing Teagasg Riogh' (`The instructions of Kings' also called `Princely Institutions') which is, preserved within `The Book of Ballymote').
Shorty before his death the noted book burner St Patrick wrote his autobography. Apprixmately 100 years later his followers wrote his biography which forms part of the Book of Armagh, work completed in 9th Century AD.
Then there the 6th century work Uraicecht Na Riar. There are the various books which St Columba and his followers took with them, which more through accident than design turned Iona into a major centre of learning. The documents brought by the Celtic Church brought numercay, literacy, learning and Christianity first to what became Scotland and then to England. This led to the creation of the Lindisfarne Gospel around 700 AD. Whilst the Christianised Irish myths formed part of Nennius' 9th Century work.
... books were written, by copying previous works.
====
(3) Re
Cyrus Gordon and a Non-Provenanced Quotation
-----------let's just cut to the chase.
I'm sorry for the offense my words have caused you and others.
But understand this. The point I was making wasn't in any way an attack on him being Jewish or an American. It was largely about from my experiences of dealing with a number of supporters of the British Isrealite belief, whose attitude is that individuals such as Cyrus Gordon, whom have no connection with Ireland, no don't speak a word of the langauge, know nothing of the culture claim to know more about both that those who speak the langauge and to whom that culture belongs.
I'm of Irish descent, but my family have been in Britian for seven generations and I'm a Protestant. My Uncle Syd was a soldier during WW2 and was awarded the Belsen medal for his part in the liberation of Belsen concentration camp. The horrors he saw destroyed his health was eventual cause of his death. My schools years were sheer hell, repeatedily beaten and bullied because having an Irish surname made people automatically assume I was Catholic and pro-IRA. If I took pride in my Irish past, refused to blindly support the actions of the Government and Loyalist terrorists I'd be accused of supporting the IRA. But when I pointed out I was Protestant they'd ask me if I could get them into the UVF [Ulster Volunteer Force]. During my University years I was a member of the Irish society who fought alongside members of the Jewish Society, against the NF [National Front] and other neo-Nazis. My academic career was cut short when I ended up in hospital.
After my uni years such were my actions against the far-right that I was one step away from appearing on Red Watch. A website which lists those on the Left targetted for harresement and killing by such as Combat-18 and other far-right groups. If that makes a bigot, then so be it.
Mythology, etc. is a powerful thing. It matters not if it contains a grain of truth or is a 100% fiction. They are stories passed down through countless generations, which tell us who we are and where we came from and in the telling of that story we are symbolically joined with our ancestors who went before us. I've studied Irish history, traditions, mythology, culture, etc for decades and when I found the claims made by British Israelites had no correlation between what is written within Irish evidence and the claims being made. When I raise questions, pointing out the flaws, the people at the British branch they were nice, polite and admitted a limited knowledge on the matter (that's fair enough).
But when is comes to those from others, when I mention I'm of Irish descent and their claims didn't match the version given within the Irish Annals or by Irish Academic bodies, their anti-Irish and anti-Catholic feelings surfaced.
I've nothing against Jews, Muslims, NI Catholics or Protestants, but I do despise the Orange Order and Loyalist culture. You may think this may me a bigot, that's your choice.
I'm of a people whose lands, titles and rights were taken from us. We were forced to Anglicise our Gaelic names, under Cromwell's Irish Solution a third of the Irish population (approx 1 million people) were in one year butchered or sent in slavery. Under the Penal Laws we denied rights and treat as third class citizens in our own countryunless we converted to the Protestant faith. These same laws tried to exterminate the langauge and every aspect of our culture. When the famine came 1 million people were allowed to starve to death because to halt food exports out of Ireland would damage the industrial revolution. The aid that came was given out by Protetsants in the form of soup, a number of Protestants only gave that aid if the starving Catholics first converted (creating the phrase to 'take the soup'). Since the aid came from Protestants, the Catholic Church told the starving they would burn in hell if they ate it.
When my ancestors came to Britain they were forced to drop th 'O' prefix to make their name sound more English. Done because places of employment and housing even into the 1970s diusplayed signs syaing 'Irish and Blacks need not apply'. All I have of I a lost in my culture, mythology, etc. a coat of arms and a title I can't use. I've nothing against Jews, Muslims, NI Catholics or Protestants, but I do despise the Orange Order and Loyalist culture.
(4) For want of a better term, my anger is driven by finding that those who spent centuries trying and wipe out my culture and ancestors (Orange Order and Loyalists), now claim as theirs a culture which isn't theirs and then dare tell me that I know Jack about my own culture, etc. because their version is contradicted by the evidence from the Irish. If that makes me a bigot so what, I've called worse. I once again apologise for any offence my words have caused.
(5) Take a good look at the attached charts (sorry about the quality they a created these years ago using a DOS paint program, from various documents and have dates errors which need correcting) these show the official Christianised pedigrees of my ancestors. Please explain to me how they are descended from the Israelites?
Yours Clifford Riley
====
====
Yair Replies:
(1) Dictionaries and Differences of Definition
There were different dialects of Irish. The language also changed over time, the same as all languages. The English of Shakespeare is not the English of today. The Dictionary you quoted is for Present-Day spoken Irish in the Republic of Ireland. We are discussing the meaning of certain Irish words in Classical sources of the past. For this purpose an older Dictionary written by Irish scholars before the Republic of Ireland existed and prior to the language being standardized might be preferable. We provide an ongoing Brit-Am Commentary to the Bible. Frequently we need to define the meaning of words in Biblical Hebrew. We very seldom refer to modern Hebrew dictionaries but rather go to older sources.
I am not sure what you are referring to concerning present spelling .
Perhaps you are referring to the quotation from Raymond McNair.
"It is certainly no coincidence that the Irish Gaelic word Dun or Dunn means "Judge," just as Dan does in Hebrew!"
McNair was probably quoting from an old British Israel source. Some of these sources are valuable. Perhaps the author of the source grew up in Ireland and was giving the meaning as he understood it? We saw that an Irish-English dictionary from 1864 gives meanings that are not that different from the one McNair gave. Or perhaps it was a mistake? The main point should be, How reliable is the overall picture?
(2) Irish Literacy: Ana or Dana?
Conventional sources say that Ogham originated in the 300s CE. You say that examples have been found from Spain from 1100 years earlier? I would like to see the source. It is unlikely.
The point we were making concerned Irish Manuscripts of the 900s and the Book of Leinster written ca. 1160 CE.
The point concerned the Tuatha de Danaan [Tribe of Dan or Tribe of the goddess Dana] whom you said were originally known as Tuatha de Ana [Tribe of the goddess Dana]
A mistake had been made, you say: Ana had been read as Dana, and henceforth everyone else repeated the mistake. The Book of Leinster came along and corrected it. What exactly the Book of Leinster says on the subject is not clear since a direct quotation has not been given.
You said:
# But an error made in the 10th century linked both together and merged them into one. An error which was corrected in the Book of Leinster, but failed to correct the error among others scribes. #
To even tentatively accept the claim that a mistake had been made and Ana changed to Dana we would need to see the form Ana used in a manuscript prior to it becoming Dana. We do not find this.
(3) Irishmen and Jews
In WW2 thousands of Irish men and women crossed to Britain to work in factories etc and thus helped the British war effort. Thousands of Irish men volunteered to serve in the British Forces. People of Irish descent served in Allied Forces. My impression (from trying to figure out the statistics) is that per head of participants the Irish earned relatively more citations for valor than any other group. This would have been despite prejudice that might have existed against them being so recognized.
Nevertheless there does exist amongst those of Irish descent an above-average number of those who are against the Jews and hostile to the State of Israel. I am Jewish. My children and grandchildren are Jewish. We believe in Judaism. We live here. Most of the world seems to be against us. Many openly say so and want to kill us. We are in daily danger of extermination at the hands of vile savages. If the Protestants of Ulster express support for us we will be grateful. If the Catholics of Ireland wantonly work against us then why should we not take note of it? And if we do not note it then the God of Israel will.
You addressed your e-mail to me and the Brit-Am/Hebrew Nations Movement. The fact that you have issues with others who on some matters have beliefs parallel to our own does not mean that we be made responsible for them.
(4) Who is Qualified to Discuss Irish Mythology?
Irish Mythologies have been translated into Latin and English for centuries.
See:
Gerald on Ireland. An Early Medieval Source, of Interest, about the Irish
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/myth/irish/gerald.html
quoting from Gerald of Wales (c. 1146 - c. 1223 CE).
Just because you know Gaelic and I do not does not mean I cannot know something about Irish Mythology. We also quote from Finnish, Swedish, Danish, German, French, Dutch and numerous other sources. We conduct Biblical Studies. I can read Hebrew and regularly study pertinent Rabbinical primary sources connected with the Bible. That does not entitle me to disqualify the opinion of others who on some points may know less than myself.
Psalm 119:
99 I have learnt from all my teachers, for your decrees are my meditation.
(5) Geneaological Trees and the Suggested Israelite Ancestry of Clifford Riley!
You sent us genealogical trees and asked how these might indicate Israelite Origins. These trees are only pertinent to us concerning the names given before those listed came to Ireland or shortly afterwards.
You have Magog who gave rise to Baath, Parholon, Nemed.
Magog son of Japheth in Church teaching (based on Josephus and/or a Rabbinical source) gave rise to the Scythians. In the Middle Ages the original Scythians had already moved west. The occupants of Scythia (southern Russia etc) at that time may well have been descended from Magog. People rationalize information according to what they know.
Nemed gave rise to Iarbhainel who married Macha, from whom came Beothach and from him the Tuatha De Danaan.
Nemed also begat Sdarn from whom came the Fir Bolg; and Fearghus Leithdherig from whom came Britan Mael and from him the Brythonic Celts (of Britain).
Another son of Nemed was Ainninn.
Iarbhainel who married Macha represent the Hebrew Yair and Maacha.
See:
HEBREW CELTIC NAMESAKES
Scroll down to:
Hebrew Celtic Namesakes # 3
YAIR of Judah, Manasseh, Scotland, and Ireland all in One!
Macha is Maacha in Hebrew. This was the name of several important ancestral females in the Tribes of Manasseh and Naphtali.
There was also the important center of Abel-beth-Maachah in the neighbourhood of Dan and Ijon, in the tribe of Naphtali.
So too, in Ireland there was Emain Macha.
Wikipedia tells us:
Fort Navan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navan_Fort
Navan Fort (Old Irish: Emain Macha... Modern Irish: Eamhain Mhacha... ) is an ancient monument in County Armagh, Northern Ireland. According to Irish mythology, it was one of the great royal sites of pre-Christian Gaelic Ireland and the capital of the Ulaidh.... According to the Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology, "the [Eamhain Mhacha] of myth and legend is a far grander and mysterious place than archeological excavation supports".
The name Eamhain Mhacha is thought to mean "the pair of Macha" or "the twins of Macha". 'Navan' is an anglicization of the Irish An Eamhain.
Emain Macha is how the name was rendered in Old Irish.
You may say it is a coincidence but we have shown elsewhere from the Hebrew Bible how in Biblical Hebrew Abel-beth-Maachah was also called Amen Maacha being a form of Eben Maacha and probably meaning the Plain of Maacha.
Amen Maacha and Emain Macha obviously look similar and if several other close parallels are drawn what do we have?
In the Table you sent the other descendants of Magog was given as someone who married Baath.
From them came Fenius Farsa King of Scythia, then Niul who married Scota daughter of Pharoah, then Gaedah Glas, then Asruth, Sruth, and Scot. Then Eber ?
Eber is another way of saying Hebrew.
Asruth is sometimes given as Asru (also rendered as Isru) a form of the Name Israel.
As we said previously:
The Irish sources concerning Goedel Glas and Nual (Niel) place the ancestor of most Irish in Egypt at the time the Israelites were leaving it in the time of Moses.
In a country ruled by the Roman Catholic Church that was against any kind of identification with the Jews, or with Israel, existing traditions would naturally be doctored. They could not say they were descended from Israel so they said they were with the Israelites in Egypt, befriended them, included Israelites amongst them, and were with the Israelites just before the parting of the Red Sea. After that they went to Ireland were at first they kept the Mosaic Law (see Louis Hyman, "The Jews of Ireland", Jerusalem, 1972, p.1 and Yair Davidiy, "Lost Israelite Identity", 1996, for sources). In other words they came as close as they possibly could to saying they were of Israelite descent without expressly admitting it!
====
Dear Yair,
In reply to my reply, Answers to an Irishman
(2) Irish Literacy: Ana or Dana?
Interesting points but also understand that many documents are still in either Old Irish or Latin and unless to understand either they of no use. Equally, there are a number of documents and Annals which many have never of because they are never printed, but kept on microfilm an example of such is the Annals of Breiifne which are the Annals of my Sept but have never being published.
(3) Irishmen and Jews
Whilst what you say about the Irish in WW2 is true and there does indeed exist those of Northern and Southern Irish descent who are against the Jews and hostile to the State of Israel, not all are. Whilst it is understandable that you'd welcome support from where ever it came, be very careful of that which comes from Ulster.
The nature of Loyalism isn't an unconditional Loyalty to the crown, but rather a conditional loyality which exists only as long as Britain does as it wishes. So much so that during WW2 Churchill would constantly question the Loyalty of Northern Irish Protestants, whilst there's an old British saying never trust an Ulsterman.
Equally, one of the main reasons many Southern Irish migrate is leave the oppressive nature of the Catholic Church....
(5) Genealogical Trees and the Suggested Israelite Ancestry of Clifford Riley!
Fair points.
Yours Cliff
====
====
5. From Yair, More Points in Reply to an Irate Irishman. The Bottom Line, Is it True or Not?
The bottom line in discussions concerning the Ancestry of certain peoples from the Ten Tribes should be, Is it true or not?
It may however be true for only part of the population. In such a case it would be understandable that some might take offense at the proposal of Israelite Ancestry.
Historically in Britain, British Israel gave expression to already existing beliefs. It did not originate them. The fact that certain groups adapted British Israel beliefs to their own agendas should not detract from appreciation of the basic truths underlying it.
Claiming Irish traditions as the spiritual property of the Irish in Ireland or of native speakers of Gaelic has only limited validity. There are people of Irish descent all over the world. Who is to say that descendants of the soldiers of Cromwell in Ireland, most of whom became Catholics, have more claim than those who descend from the original stock but changed their religion?
The parents of Ronald Reagan were from Ireland. According to Yehonatan David White President Ronald Reagan, in an audience with Jews, expressed his belief that his Irish ancestors were from Israel. In the book, "Exodus 48", it tells of an Irishman who fought on the Jewish side in 1948 because he thought the Jews were a branch of the Irish. Numerous other examples and similar anecdotes no doubt exist.
The idea that the Irish may be descended from Israelites existed amongst people of Irish descent, just as it does amongst the British. Also quite a few Jews and others have remarked on the possibility.
Again the question should not be some abstract philosophical equivocation but rather is it true or not?
Accounts concerning the Tribe of Dana fit quite well with what we know about Scandinavia in the Bronze Age. which did interact with Ireland.
If the Dana had not been recorded we might have been obliged to hypothesize their existence.
If we are to be nitpicking what right do academic European Continental atheists to nullify the existence of the Dana without any evidence? Against the evidence? They are the ones who are abusing the Irish cultural heritage.
How do we know that the Dana did not exist whereas the worship of Anna did? Perhaps Anna and the Paps of Anna (a hill in Ireland) derive from the imagery of St. Anne? In the same way as pagan deities were turned into Christian saints why could Christian saints not have become the equivalent of pagan deities in local lore?
We also have works such as those of, "The Atlantean Irish. Ireland's Oriental and Maritime Heritage" by Bob Quinn, London/NY, 1986.
Quinn claims there were continuous ongoing contacts, both ethnic and cultural, between the British "Celts", especially those of Western Ireland and North Africa, Egypt, and the Middle East.
Quote from page 14:
# The ideas in Atlantean were originally greeted with good humor?
'Are you the fellow that says we're all Arabs? Commented a judge in Kinvara, Co. Galway, before dismissing a minor charge against me. He added, glancing wearily around the miscreants in his court:
'I'm sure you have found plenty of confirmation for your theory today.' #
Quinn apparently received some assistance from the Libya of Gaddaffi in writing his two works on the subject. Should he be condemned for misuse of spiritual heritage or rather should the question not be, How much truth is there in it?
====
Clifford Riley wrote:
Dear Yair,
Once again you make many interesting points, the fate of the Lost Tribes of Israel is one of these question marks of history and it's understandable that people would want it answering either way. But no matter how much we each belief in something won't make it true or false, the facts do that so there has to be a correlation between what is claimed and what is established and a consistency of argument.
For example, Irish myth holds that Nuil was the father of Gaedheal Glas who founded the Gaels, whilst Nuil's encounter with the Israelites forms a time of between 1500 and 1250 BC. Irish myth also holds that the Milesian Gaels were founded by Golamh who served as a mercenary for Pharaoh Nectanebo, thus making the 4th Century BC a point for the Milesian Gaels coming to Ireland (a point in time supported by other factors). But what some have done is effectively make Golamh (aka Milesius) the ancestor of his own ancestor in order to make their argument work. I've also read claims made by some which don't show or take into account historical timelines or consider that symbols, names, etc. aren't unique to one people or have same meanings. If people don't provide reasoned argument or justification to explain why they interpret the meaning of a word, culture, beliefs, symbols, etc, differently it implies they do so to make their argument work. That isn't just wrong on so many levels; and collectively creates flaws in the argument which ultimately destroy that argument.
What is forgotten is that Irish traditions include those adopted from those who inhabited Ireland before them. Whilst the most interesting traditions, rituals, beliefs and social aspects are those which are identical to those of the ancient Egyptians. This supports the claim of a Gael and Egyptian connection, but the same mythical evidence which supports this claim also shows no connection with the Israelites. In fact Nuil's marrying the daughter of Pharaoh would be illegal under Ancient Egyptian laws designed to keep the purity of Royal blood lines. However, it would suggest that Nuil could have be a minor Egyptian Prince, which would explain the genetic link between the Gaels and the Egyptians, but the actions (helping the Israelites) which eventually caused his great-grandson to leave Egypt. However, people should ask if such a encounter happened where is the evidence within Exodus?
When the Milesian Gaels came to Ireland they split into three tribes. The tribe which would eventually dominate Ireland were centred in what in now County Meath, before eventually heading West and then North. After some research I found that the genetic tests to which I've so often referred to were carried out of those of Milesian Gaels from the North, mainly those belonging to clans and septs descended from Niall Naoighiallach. However, the Milesian Gael tribe from which Ronald Reagan's Sept is descended went West and are found in County Clare and Cork.
SInce the pedigrees I previously sent show no direct descent of the Gaels from the Tuatha De Danann, combined with Irish tradition that the Tuatha De Danann ended up in County Roscommon (where they are supposed to have died out); it seems that more likely that people are looking in the wrong place and at the wrong people. I think people should start looking at the pedigrees, history, etc, of those found within the writings of the MacFirbis. Simply put in order to find out if it is true or false, people need to explore all possibilities.
Yours Cliff
Reply from Yair:
If you have your own ideas concerning Nial we would be pleased to hear them or even publish them if you wish.
Ronald Reagan has male descendants. His DNA is probably known.
There are at least two families called Regan in Ireland.
An email from Paul Duffy tells us:
Ai RIAGAIN
*O Riegaine, O Regane*, O'Regan, RRegan; 'descendant of Riagain'; the name of two distinct families. one seated in ancient Meath [east-central Ireland], and the other in Thomond [south of center on the west coast]. The O'Regans of Meath were a branch of the southern Ui Neill and one of the four tribes of Tara.
....The O'Regans of Thomond are a Dalcassian family said to be descended from Riagain, son of Donncuan, the brother of Brian Boru. The O'Regans are now numerous all over Ireland. ...
So he could have been M222 or he could be Z253/L226.
We ourselves are very reserved about DNA. Eventually it should become clear that environment was also a factor in determining DNA types. DNA however to some degree has something to tell us. We can also learn from the academic attitude towards it. Usually DNA distinctions can be explained by known history. Sometimes they cannot. When this happens the answer is that there were population movements that history overlooked. The implications are obvious. If it is good enough for DNA it should be good enough for us.
We understand the Lost Ten Tribes to now be amongst Western Nations. Our main justification for this belief is the Bible as supplemented and confirmed by Rabbinical writings. Secular historical sources can confirm this or provide a feasible framework explaining how it could have come about. We could be wrong on the historical details. It may have happened otherwise. The point is that it happened.