Australia and New Zealand are the Land of Sinim. A Reply to Criticism.
Reply to Criticism
An Article in the Series
Brit-Am Refutes its Critics.
| Brit-Am Discussion Group  |
Contents by Subject | Research Revelation Reconciliation Contribute |
Site Map Contents in Alphabetical Order |
 This Site |
 |
The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel according to the Book of Genesis Biblical Prophecy Predicted that the Lost Tribes of Israel would be found amongst Western Nations. Biblical Verses analysed in the light of the Hebrew language, Rabbinical Commentary, and Historical Reality. A valuable educational, inspirational, and enjoyable work |
Brit-Am and Australia: Reply to Criticism
Duncan Heaster in the article below criticizes the findings of Brit-Am Research that identify "The Land of Sinim" (Isaiah 49:12) with Australia. Scripture indicated "The Land of Sinim" as one of the locations of the Lost Ten Tribes in the Latter days.
Replying to:
Debating Bible Basics by Duncan Heaster
http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/14-10-2.htm
14-10 British Israelism Considered
14-10-2 The Brit-Am / YairDavidiy Movement- Are Australians One Of The Lost Ten Tribes?
The Brit-Am / YairDavidiy Movement- Are Australians One Of The Lost Ten Tribes?
YairDavidiy in his books "Origin: You Too Are From Israel" and "Ephraim: The Gentile Children Of Israel" makes the claim that the Anglo-Saxon peoples are the lost ten tribes of Israel. His reasoning differs from Armstrongism, but seeing his views are increasingly popular and have the appearance of academic integrity, we feel we have to make a comment.
Brit-Am Reply:
H.W. Armstrong used mainly Biblical Proofs to trace the Lost Ten Tribes to Western Peoples. On the whole we agree with the proofs he used but amplify and add to them. Our own definition would be to say that we "supplement" rather than "differ from" Armstrongism.
Belief in the Lost Ten Tribes being found amongst Western Peoples however preceded H.W. Armstrong by hundreds of years. It is mentioned by the Jewish Sage, Rashi (1040-1105) in his Commentary to the Book of Obadiah as well as being found in the earliest writings of the English, Irish, Frisians, Scottish, Swedish, Finns, and others.
We've chosen to mainly just analyze his statements that Australians are Israelites. Our concern is particularly with his research process, and it is this which we wish to critique, as what we say in this area could be repeated on every other claim he makes.
Yair repeatedly makes the equation: Australia = "the land of Sinim" of Isaiah 49:12. Stones found in Australia have Phoenician writing on them, he claims, which mentioned "Yahweh". Source- some unheard of local newspaper ["Maggies Farm"] in rural Queensland, of which we see no mention on the internet at all. The source of primary evidence is thus both obscure, and impossible to verify. There is a rock music radio station in Queensland called "Maggie's Farm" according to the internet, maybe Yair is referring to that. For that to be at all validly researched there would have to be a) dating of the rocks. If Yair had done that, or if someone had done it, well, the reference would be natural to give. There's none b) Evidence the form of Phoenician matches a certain era of Phoenician language in history, to establish the date [as languages are all dynamic]. c) The obvious objection that these are stone monuments of the type Aborigines created all over Australia would have to be deconstructed- e.g. 'Well THESE monuments are SO different to any the Aborigines did'... etc etc. d) Why can nobody show the actual mention of the word "Yahweh" in the inscriptions. If, as Yair claims, Israelites started going to Australia after 600 B.C., isn't it rather strange that they would use ha shem, the Name, so glibly? And why are the inscriptions supposedly in Phoenician and not Hebrew?
Brit-Am Reply:
A good portion of the population of Australia originates in Western Europe. Our researches show that most of the peoples in Western Europe contain a substantial portion of descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel. This applies especially to the populations of Ireland, Ulster, Scotland, Wales, England, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. This is alongside pockets of Israelite descent that were to be found throughout Europe. Since most Australians are descended from such peoples, especially those of the British Isles then it follows that they too on this point alone would be of Israelite descent.
Isaiah prophesied about the Return of the Lost Ten Tribes;
[Isaiah 49:12] BEHOLD, THESE SHALL COME FROM FAR: AND, LO, THESE FROM THE NORTH AND FROM THE WEST; AND THESE FROM THE LAND OF SINIM.
We identify "THE LAND OF SINIM" with Australia.
Our reasoning behind this identification may be found at:
The Brit-Am Commentary to Isaiah 49:12
This is largely an extract from our work "Ephraim" to which Duncan Heaster in the quote above is referring.
A shorter version is to be found in our list of
Brit-Am Biblical Proofs. Geographical Evidence:
Land of Sinim.The Lost Ten Tribes and Australia.
We quote from certain enthusiasts in Australia who claim to have found archaeological evidence of Egyptian, Phoenicians, and Israelites having visited Australia.
For an article on this matter see:
Phoenicians in Australia
This article gives similar evidence to that we quoted from "Maggie's Farm" and which Duncan Heaster jubilantly reported he could find no trace of.
Personally we believe that there could be something in these claims. Even if they are mistaken it would detract little from the strength of our identification of Australia with the Land of Sinim.
There was a strong trade between India and the Middle East from the very beginning of their civilizations. There was also a strong connection between India and Indonesia.
Note the positions of Indonesia and New Guinea to their north
The Land of Sinim |
The Phoenicians visited East Africa and according to Herodotus periodically circumnavigated Africa altogether.
cf.
"Central Africa as a Source of Tin" by John E. Dayton item #163
"Recent lead isotope analysis of lead ingots found in Haifa [i.e. in the State of Israel] in 1982 have thrown new light on possible sources of Bronze Age tin. The analyses of Bergernanli show that some of the Haifa tin came from the extensive tin fields of Central Africa".
For an idea of Phoenician Sailing activity see our articles on:
Tarshish and Phoenicians
The Phoenicians reached the Islands of Indonesia and left their alphabet there in around 600 BCE.
Just as the Dutch eventually discovered (or re-discovered) Australia due to their ships sailing the seas to and from Indonesia so could the Phoenicians have done.
Even the Australian Aborigines did not originate in Australia. DNA analysis shows they had contact with both groups in India and in Europe. A variant ancient form of Y[male-transmitted]haplogroup R* [mainly associated with the Celts of Western Europe and the East European "Slavs"] has been found amongst some of them.
Physical anthropologists have found similar types to the Australian Aborigines in South America, Yemen in the Arabian Peninsula, in India and to a lesser degree throughout most of Asia.
The overall opinion is that they began in China and branched out from there. This actually is quite convenient for us. There are two main claims concerning the identification of The Land of Sinim.
One says it is Australia.
The other identifies it with China.
Having the Australian Aborigines start off in China and end up in Australia solves both equations!
On the other hand the best scenario is that they originated in the Land of Canaan, moved out to various regions with a good portion of them going to China and from there to Australia.
Ancient Pictographs show that Boomerangs were once used in North Africa on the borders of Egypt. The dingo dog which is native to Australia may have derived from the Middle East.
The Sinim [translated as "Sinite", Genesis 10:17] were a Canaanite People.
Duncan Heaster in his article brings up irrelevant questions and criticisms apparenly in an attempt to show what he considers to be our general unreliability rather than anything else.
He asks,
isn't it rather strange that they would use ha shem, the Name, so glibly? And why are the inscriptions supposedly in Phoenician and not Hebrew?
In reply we may point out that:
(a) The name has been found in inscriptions.
(b) Ancient Phoenician is similar to Ancient Hebrew. According to researchers the type of Hebrew spoken by the Northern Israelites before their exile was closer to "Phoenician" than it was to the Hebrew spoken in the south.
Ahab married Jezebeel who was a daughter of the King of Tyre and connections were quite close.
The Bible records that King Solomon sent ships to Tarshish with mixed Phoenician-Israelite crews in ships of Tyre (1-Kings 10:22) i.e. Phoenician ships.
Yair quotes Barry Fell as a specialist who proved that Phoenicians went to Australia.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Fell Fell was no specialist in Australian origins, his supposed work on their history isn't even quoted there in his academic summary, rather he wrote about native Americans, even though actually he was a biologist at Harvard and not an ethnographer at all; but got into serious problems for unprofessional twisting of primary data relating to native American inscriptions, and resigned from academic life- can't Yair find someone more credible to quote?
Brit-Am Reply:
Barry Fell was controversial. His speciality was marine biology in which he seems to have excelled. He had quite an intellect and was able to correlate numerous pieces of evidence.
Some of his claims may well have been valid. We quoted him. Take it or leave it. We were not relying on his testimony to prove our case but rather to add another possibility, or a point of interest to it.
This is evident from the context.
Yair quotes "Rex Gilroy" as an authority who has a Phoenician inscription in his "museum" in Tamworth NSW . There appears to be no such museum. You can search the net yourself on "Rex Gilroy" and see what sort of 'authority' he is... seems he has a few things in his home he shows visitors. We don't call that a "museum". If you poke around online you can see the inscriptions- and they are typical Aboriginal inscriptions. OK I am not an expert of course on Australian ethnic archaeology, but when serious research debunks the people quoted, and when they are falsely made out to be authoritative, I have a problem. I don't mean 'experts must be right'. Not at all- look how many scientists are utterly wrong re evolution! What I mean is that any claim made must be backed up by verifiable evidence, and when that "evidence" is provided by non-specialists who pose as specialists, and is carefully debunked by people who are specialists... well for me that obviously is significant. It's the process of research, however, which is my concern. If Yair's hermeneutic and research pattern was solid, e.g. serious presentation of sources, not making major but unsupported and unreferenced claims in some areas, considering the obvious counter-arguments before arriving at a conclusion and offering it to others to accept, then the objections of the specialists could be re-worked and re-considered. But Yair simply doesn't do this- he makes wild claims, contradicting a lot of evidence, quoting unverifiable sources or sources which simply lack integrity, and then presents his claims as hard, researched fact. And he presents a map showing Australia as the "land of Sinim"- a map which has absolutely no basis for that identification, because it's produced by Yair himself or his publisher.
Brit-Am Reply:
In the couse of our writing we may throw in a few piquant extraneous details but it should be obvious that we are NOT relying entirely on them and in fact may not be relying on them at all.
We identify many of the People of Australia as part of the Lost Ten Tribes because:
They are kith and kin of peoples in Europe that other evidence shows to have been descended from Israel.
They are in the south and east of the Land of Israel.
They are at the End of the Earth.
They are an Island. They enjoy the blessings that were promised to the Children of Israel.
They fulfil the Ephraimite Criteria by which we discern which peoples are descended from Israel.
They are in the Land of Sinim that Isaiah 49:12 gave as one of the areas from which the Lost Ten Tribes will return in the Latter Days.
The Bible Codes also identify Australia and New Zealand as pertaining to the Lost Ten Tribes and as denoted as The Land of Sinim.
See:
Australia and the Matrix based on research by Shmuel Treister "Australia and the Land of Sinim"
"New Zealand in Brit-Am Bible Codes"
Some of the above points are very general and some of them are specific. We present them altogether on the understanding that they must be considered as one comprehensive whole. This applies to all our evidence.
Of course he tries to cover himself at times- e.g. "According to the Latin Vulgate translation the intention is that they will return "from Australia"... the Hebrews had knowledge of Australia". [pp. 88,89 , Ephraim]. "The intention is..." ? Well the Vulgate speaks of the land of the South, following a Jewish interpretation rather than translation, but every Biblical reference to that phrase is not to Australia but to Egypt. "The intention is... "- well, in Yair's mind, yes, but I am sure the Vulgate translators were not "intending" a reference to Australia when they did it in AD400 [at the latest]. I'm sure they had no clue where Australia is, it would've been unknown to them.
Brit-Am Reply:
The expression "Land of Sinim" in the Aramaic paraphrase-translation to the Bible (300BCE to 100 BCE) is translated as "Land of the South".
The Vulgate in translating "Land of Sinim" uses the term "Australis" or "Australia".
"Australia" means "South Land" in Latin.
The idea of a Great South Land existed for a long time.
See:
The Maps
The idea of a Great Southern land, to balance the known land masses of the Northern Hemisphere, originated with the Classical Greeks. Both the Mela Map of 43 M.E. and the Ortelius map of 1570 show this mythical continent, Terra Australis Incognito, which persisted on the maps until Captain James Cook finally dispelled the idea by his exploration of the Antarctic Seas.
History of Australia
For at least a number of centuries, Macassar [in Indonesia] had traded with Indigenous Australians on Australia's north coast, particularly the Yolngu of north-east Arnhem Land.
Discovery of Australia
The people of Arnhem Land [North Australia] were exposed to continuous interaction with various visitors from Asia. Early Indian visitors from around the time of Christ are said to be the motivation for what is known as the Bradshaw figurines in Kimberly art. It is likely that the Chinese have had some knowledge of Australia since the 13th century or before. In c. 1300, Marco Polo made reference to the reputed existence of a vast southern continent.
DOWN UNDER HISTORY TAKES GIANT LEAP BACK
Middle Age cartographers Macrobius in the tenth century, Cecco d'Ascoli in the thirteenth century, and Marco Polo in the fourteenth displayed their belief in a great southern continent. Marco Polo depicted two great islands south-east of Java and wrote that they were seven hundred miles distant. Marco Polo's information is viewed as evidence of Chinese knowledge of the southern continent.
European discovery and the colonisation of Australia
The first records of European mariners sailing into 'Australian' waters occurs around 1606, and includes their observations of the land known as Terra Australis Incognita (unknown southern land). The first ship and crew to chart the Australian coast and meet with Aboriginal people was the Duyfken captained by Dutchman, Willem Janszoon.
And just for the hell of it:
Brit-Am Now 593
#2. Ancient Egyptians in Australia?
Note the following websites claim that Ancient Egyptians and Phoenicians were in Australia.
Brit-Am believes this is correct but we should be careful about accepting evidence from unconfirmed sources.
The URLS with excerpts:
http://www.archaeologyanswers.com/egypt.htm
Chemical analysis of some Ancient Egyptian Mummies has revealed the presence of Eucalyptus Oil which indicates contact with Australia in the days of the Pharaohs!
Did you know that death beliefs and rites of Ancient Egypt (including mummification) are held by Arnhem Land (Australia) and Torres Strait natives? The incisions and method of embalming are identical to the practice of 2,900 years ago in Egypt.
http://www.internetezy.com.au/
~mj129/strangephenomenon.html
Aboriginal Cultures {Egyptian Influences}
While investigating Aboriginal cultures in the North-West Kimberly's during 1931, Professor A.P Elkin of Sydney University came upon tribes displaying Mediterranean racial features, with Egyptian words in their language. Professor Elkin also recorded ...an Earth Mother cult identical in every respect with that of the Ancient Egyptians. These findings led Professor Elkin to believe there were historical connections with the Mediterranean dating to before the time of Christ. Torres Strait islanders once mummified their dead in a way which Cambridge University Anthropologists noticed was identical to the method practiced during the 21st Dynasty 2,900 years ago. The inference is that Egyptians seamen, settled in Torres Strait, taught the people there how, in their own ritual fashion, to preserve the bodies of the dead. The custom continued until Christian missionaries forbade it late last century (1800's) If Egyptians, or folk from their part of the world, did reach Australia they supposedly took home materials as lasting evidence of their visit.
Eucalyptus 1000 B.C
Such evidence exists. In 1964 the tomb of a woman, dating back to 1,000 B.C was found in the Jordan Valley. Examination of the body revealed that Eucalyptus resin was employed in the embalming process. As in those times Eucalyptus could only have been obtained from either Australia, Torres Strait or New Guinea, does it not seem reasonable to assume that the Ancient Egyptians must have been here? Of course, some authorities are going to cry absurd to such claims, preferring to confine themselves to the traditional view of Australian discoveries and exploration.
http://www.crystalinks.com/auspetroglyphs.html
At the mouth of the Glenely River (SA), there are human figures resembling Phoenician seafarers garbed in clothing that includes a peculiar cap worn by these people in biblical times.
Yair says, in claiming to interpret the Bible and prove Australia is mentioned in it, "One Midrashic source implies..." . Well Jewish Midrash contains interesting stuff, but it's not an authority at all. And we're told "it implies..."? Why not give the quote from the Midrash referred to, so we can decide for ourselves whether it "implies" what he says it does? It's like saying 'A commentary on the Bible I have here on my shelf implies that verse A means B, so, there you are, that is evidence". Sorry, to me there is something basically the matter here.
Brit-Am Reply:
We could not find what Duncan was referring to, but:
What did we say the Midrash implies?
Why does Duncan not quote what we said the Midrash implies was referring to?
Why not let the reader judge?
As to the claim that Isaiah referred to Australia when he spoke of the "land of Sinim". How does Yair know what was in Isaiah's mind. Did Isaiah know of Australia? "Sinim" appears to be a plural of "Sinai", i.e. the area of Mount Sinai. "Sinim" is simply not the Hebrew word for "the south". Anyone with a concordance or basic knowledge of Biblical Hebrew can check that out. Yet Yair claims: "Sinim is an Ancient Hebrew term for Australia". Sorry, it isn't. He gives no evidence for his claim at all. How come every available Hebrew dictionary, concordance, lexicon, doesn't agree? I return to my issue of process. If Yair can make this blanket claim, knowing every authority is against him, well, why would he think that? Where's the evidence? The usual process would be to say: A,B, C etc. deny this- but they're wrong, here's why [evidence presented]. I say this because of that and this evidence [and present your case].
Brit-Am Reply:
We do not know what Isaiah had in mind! Did Isaiah know? Isaiah was prophesying. It is the way of Prophesy for the Prophet to speak in term of his own reality while actually referring to the far-off future.
No modern authority knows what "Land of Sinim" means.
They do not know what it meant then and more importantly they do not know what it was meant to mean NOW!
The Prophecy is for the future. It is part of the Predictions concerning the Lost Ten Tribes in the Latter Days.
Read the entire 49th chapter of Isaiah with the Brit-Am Commentary.
All we can go on is what the Hebrew verses say, what the Commentaries say and our own understanding confirms, what the Context is, and what other knowledge we possess pertinent to the matter.
We know Isaiah chapter 49 was referring to the Lost Ten Tribes.
The simple meaning indicates this and the Midrash (Numbers Rabah 1;6, Eichah Rabah 2;9, Jerusalemi Sanhedrin ch.17, L.6,29) confirms it, see the full quotation in our commentary on Isaiah 49.
The present-day inhabitants of Australia on other counts are part of the Lost Ten Tribes.
The simple meaning of the verse indicates direction.
[Isaiah 49:12] BEHOLD, THESE SHALL COME FROM FAR: AND, LO, THESE FROM THE NORTH AND FROM THE WEST; AND THESE FROM THE LAND OF SINIM.
The verse mentions North and West. That leaves South and East or perhaps Southeast.
The earliest source we have (the Aramaic Translation) says "Land of Sinim" means "The South Land".
"Australia" means "The South Land" in Latin.
Knowledge of Australia almost certainly existed.
Australian Aborigines to a degree could be considered to fit a profile of the Sinim People having come from the Middle East, being descendants of Ham and Canaan, and having reached Australia after sojourning in China.
In line with our other results, the overall context, and the options available identifying the "Land of Sinim" with Australia is the most logical conclusion.
And, quite simply, Australia was the homeland of the Aborigines and not the Anglo Saxons. Even today due to more recent immigration from Asia, far less than 50% of Australians are ethnically Anglo Saxon. Are the Aborigines, then, also ethnic Jews? There seems a huge logical fallacy going on here. The Jews, we're told by Yair, went on expeditions to Australia and knew the place from 600 BC. Strangely, in a culture with such a rich written historical legacy, this was unrecorded by them. But does that therefore make the inhabitants of Australia, Jewish? Over the last few centuries, Australia has been colonized and inhabited by people from about every nation on earth. By reason of living in a country that was allegedly visited by Jews over two millennia ago, does that make those people 'Jewish'? How is ethnicity affected by the visit of Jewish people to a country?
Brit-Am Reply:
Duncan makes the common mistake of referring to the Ten Lost Tribes as "Jews".
Jews are descendants of inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah or people who belong to the Jewish religion.
Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews. The Ten Lost Tribes come from the Kingdom of Israel which separated itself from the Kingdom of Judah (2 Kings chapter 17). They were not "Jewish".
Our understanding of Prophecy is that it was to apply primarily to the End Times although in some cases having an intermediate application before then.
cf.
[Genesis 49:1] AND JACOB CALLED UNTO HIS SONS, AND SAID, GATHER YOURSELVES TOGETHER, THAT I MAY TELL YOU THAT WHICH SHALL BEFALL YOU IN THE LAST DAYS.
Note the Prophecy was directed to the THE LAST DAYS.
So too,
[Daniel 12:9] AND HE SAID, GO THY WAY, DANIEL: FOR THE WORDS ARE CLOSED UP AND SEALED TILL THE TIME OF THE END.
We would say that whenever the Last Days are coming we may be near to them.
At the least we are nearer to them now than we were a few hundred years ago.
Despite the presence of numerous foreigners a good proportion of the Present-Day Australians are descended from inhabitants of the British Isles. Their kith and kin (also largely descended from the British Isles) have been proven on other counts to be descended from Israel. This Brit-Am Hebrew identification of Northern Peoples also applies to their relatives in Australia. So too, any verse indicating that the Lost Ten Tribes are also in part in Australia and New Zealand should also be taken as applying to their kinfolk in the North!
The whole discussion should concern the following points:
a. Whether or not Isaiah 49:12 was referring to the future Return of the Ten Lost Tribes?
b. Whether or not Isaiah 49:12 in mentioning "The Land of Sinim" referred to Australia?
If Ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Israelites ever visited Australia and/or New Zealand does not overduly matter to us. It does however add some interest and lends depth to our belief that in Isaiah where the Land of Sinim is mentioned then Australia and New zealand are intended.
Duncan appears to be playing around with words in his debate with us and simply not wanting to consider what we are really saying. He complains about our lack of academic rationalistic methodology but does not apply it himself in rejecting our argument.
The Root Fallacy
Another difficulty I have with Yair's process is his constant claims regarding root meanings of Hebrew and other words. Thus: "the name Sambation was understood to be another form of the term Sabbath" (Ephraim p. 100). Understood by whom? Why no reference to back that up? Because two words superficially sound the same is irrelevant. As has been noted elsewhere: "Easy access to Hebrew lexicons lead many Bible students to look up a word, then look at it's root, and decide that the root is therefore the meaning- especially if it fits in to their idea of what the passage under study should mean! But this isn't a true way of analyzing language. Words with different meanings can have the same root. Take the words "unity" and "uniformity". Sadly, these two words are confused all too often in Christian churches- e.g., "To create unity in the church, everyone must come to the breaking of bread meeting uniformly dressed, all wearing a certain kind of clothing". No, "unity" and "uniformity"are two quite different things; and yet they come from the same root word, "uno"." - http://www.aletheiacollege.net/mm/4-7-A_How_To_Interpret_The_Bible.htm . Yair on almost every few pages repeats this root word fallacy- p. 101 has it a few times on the same page.
Brit-Am Reply:
The word "Sambation" in Jewish dialects means "Sabbath".
For proof look up the Encyclopedia Judaica under the entry "Sambation".
We said that the term "Sambation" was first applied to the lower Zab River in Iran and later given to the Don River in Southern Russia.
This is confirmed in the Jewish Encyclopedia article:
sambation
This article also confirms that the term "Sambation" was interchangeable with "Shabbat" i.e. "Sabbath".
Our style and methodology may not be as refined and proper as they should be.
We will endeavor to improve ourselves.
Nevertheless, the primary concern of Duncan and all others should be whether we are correct or not.
Name Dropping
Yair quotes Bochart's "Sacred geography". Seeing this book is referred to by many writers as evidence that Russia=Gog / Ros, I tried very hard to locate this once, seeing that it was my impression they were just name dropping. Being then a member of the RGS [Royal Geographical Society] I did locate one of the very few originals, in the RGS Library up near Buckingham Palace. It's in Latin, has never been translated to English, and I very much doubt Yair ever got hold of it and read it. The original was so frail they let me open a few pages and read them [with my limited Latin] but only under their watchful eye lest I damage the original. So to me, that's just name dropping to reference it- and he gives the date of the edition as 1692, published in Frankfurt. I am almost certain he never read that original edition. He'd be hard put to get his hands on one! And, sorry, but the edition published in Frankfurt was in 1674- http://www.smitskamp.nl/644-RAR.HTM . If all these conclusions are rooted in well researched solid fact, then why resort to name dropping? That he's name dropping is again shown when he states that the word "Scotti", used by the Scots in the UK, is from a Hebrew word. And he references Bochart for reference [Ephraim p. 101, note 20]. When we turn to page 111 to see note 20, we read simply "Bochartus". OK, what page? If he had really gotten hold of that book and read it in Latin, then he'd have made so much effort for sure he'd give the page number! Of course it happens you read an old, hard to access author quoted in a more modern one. As Yair ought to know, the way to proceed is to say "Bochart, as quoted in [author, title, publisher, date, page]". Why the lack of transparency?
In the main branch of the National Library of Israel located on the grounds of the Hebrew Unversity in Givat Ram, Jerusalem (almost within walking distance from the present location of the Brit-Am World Headquarters, 10 minutes by Taxi, 20 minutes by bus in both cases by a roundabout route, under 30 minutes by foot) in the Rare Books section is a copy of Bochartus. Presence of the work may be verified by telephone to the Information Desk at the Library or by an International Loan inquiry at most major libraries.
It is in good condition and for all I know may actually be merely a reproduction of the original. I photocopied most of the work and have it somewhere in my files. It is in Latin but I learned a bit of Latin once and could figure out the rest.
This is how it is registered in the Bibliography of "Ephraim".
BOCHART, SAMUEL. "Phaleg", "Chanaan". "Geographia Sacra; seu Phaleg et Canaan". Frankfort 1681-1692.
The work is divided into two. One half traces the Sons of Noah (Genesis ch.10) to historicial national entities mainly based on a similarity of names.
The other section discusses the world-wide sea-voyages of the Phoenicians as well as claiming that the Phoenicians once ruled over Gaul (present-day France and Belgium) as well as having been prominent in Spain.
We used Bochart quite frequently in our work "Lost Israelite Identity. The Hebrew Ancestry of Celtic Races" (1996).
You will find Samuel Bochart quoted as a source in our online article, HEBREW CELTIC NAMESAKES.
Incidentally,
This discussion of Bochart has led us to remember a
very important point
that we had previously put aside and forgotten about!
Samuel Bochart published his work in ca. 1681. This was before the voyage of Captain James Cook in 1770 after which the existence of Australia became widely known in the West.
New Guinea however had already been mapped by the Portuguese in ca. 1600. There are pygmies in New Guinea as well as in Africa. Bochart claimed that an ancient reference to Pygmies attributed to a Phoenician source referred to those of New Guinea showing that the Phoenicians had already navigated that area!
New Guinea is just to the north of Australia.
If Bochart is correct than the probability that the Phoenicians (and therefore also the Ancient Hebrews) had some knowledge of Australia is greatly increased.
Duncan implied that our reference to Bochart was a bluff. We all make mistakes, Duncan, and that was one of yours.
The passage from "Ephraim" Duncan takes umbrage at is:
Like the third part of exiled Israelites in the Midrash, so too, were the Cimmerians in Classical Literature to be associated with Clouds, Mountains, or simply regions, of Darkness. A word root "comer" (reminiscent of "Cimmerian") in both Hebrew and Latin even connotes "darkness"!16 At one stage a portion of the Cimmerians were to be found in the Crimean Peninsula. At that time the climate was much wetter in the Crimean region than it is now and the area was apparently always cloudy. In Latin Literature there existed a phrase "Af tenebrae Cimmeriae" meaning "Cimmerian Darkness" and applied to the Crimea17. The bulk of the Cimmerians via the Balkans entered Europe and moved westward. They are identified in general with the Celts. The name "Celt" has been interpreted as:
"Meaning hidden the word which gives us the Irish form `ceilt', i.e. concealment or secret, and the word which gives us the English word kilt". PETER BERRESFORD ELLIS, "The Celtic Empire," London, 1990, p.9.The Scottii who from Scythia reached Ireland and from there went to Scotland were counted as Celts. Their name ("Scotoi") in Greek was understandable as meaning obscure or hidden19. In Britain and Brittany (Gaul) lived a people called Ostrynimians by the Carthaginians and Phoenicians and this name also is said to mean hidden20 from the Hebrew root "sater". The god Saturn who allegedly reigned in the British Isles too has a name derivable in Hebrew from the same root ("sater") and connoting the "hidden god". Pagan writers identified Saturn with Israel. A portion of the Lost Tribes was understood to be hidden by the Clouds of Darkness. We find indeed amongst the Celts (especially those of Britain) terminology that relates them to the associated concepts of €œhidden€, €œclouds€, and €œdarkness€. This could be dismissed as coincidental were it not for the fact that too numerous other proofs from all fields point in the same direction.