Talk:British Israelism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
[edit] Pseudohistory
I added the comments made regarding “pseudohistory” and questioning the DNA evidence made by Java7837 to the critic’s section.
There are those who would claim than both Judaism and Christianity as a whole are based on "pseudohistory". There was a time when many thought the concept of the city state of "Troy" was "pseudohistory", but now archeology has presented evidence to justify its existance. It is one thing to claim a beleif or an idea is "pseudohistory" it is another to prove it.
The reason the critic’s section was created was to give those who have contrary evidence to that presented by adherents of British Israelism the opportunity to present it. Just as in the rest of this page the statements made contrary to the assertions of the adherents to British Israelism should list their sources for these contrary statements.
Its only fair. That’s what being objective is all about. :)
Brythstone 4-13-07
This is a plausible addition in terms of content, but someone should find a citation of this analysis. --Jack Stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.205.167 (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Editorialization
Apeloverage removed the following statement: “While legend should not be mistaken for scientific fact, folklore has often been shown to contain seeds of truth. Regardless of the accuracy of the details of these legends, each of them are evidence of a belief by British people and those descended from them for hundreds and even thousands of years in a tangible genetic connection between the people of Britain and the people of the Holy land.”
Apeloverage justified this removal by suggesting this paragraph was “editorialization”.
As I understand it, an editorialization is “expressing opinion in the guise of an objective report.”
An example would be writing an article about “Big Foot” and presenting evidence that native Americans have preserved legends of a large beast that resembles the descriptions of modern day “Big Foot” sightings, so because the Native Americans have these legends we should beleive big foot is real. This is an editorialization.
Presenting the information, and then suggesting that the fact that Native Americans have this legend is proof that Americans have held a belief in a “Big Foot” for centuries, is not editorialization, it is a statement of fact. Suggesting they believe it and have for years doesn’t in and of itself make their beliefs true, it only helps to establish a time frame and the perspective of the believers.
Any rational scientific presentation of information must also give a rendering of the point of view of the testimony or of the evidence. All objective analysis must take into account the POV of the testimony or evidence, and then attempt to compare this information with the rest of the information gathered on the subject without attempting to “lead the evidence” through subjective “proof texting”. The statement removed by Apeloverage, was attempting to point out that this belief has been around for quite some time, and these legends provide evidence to that effect. If we are to truly understand it, then its origins and the POV of the adherents must be accurately reproduced. In previous versions of this page some suggested that this belief was a rather recent incarnation. The evidence of these legends tends to say otherwise.
The idea that these legends have been around for quite some time is not an opinion, but a deduction from the evidence available.
This information by itself does not “editorialize” the facts at hand, only presents them. I suggest that the removal of the majority of that paragraph represents editorial censorship, a type of editorialization. If Apeloverage has evidence to contradict these statements (i.e. the age of the existence of these legends), perhaps it would be more constructive to produce that evidence in the critic’s section.
I rolled back the alteration made by Apeloverage, but would like to see any evidence he or she might have contrary to the statements expressed there or herein.
Brythstone 3-11-07
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.21 (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Addition of Critic's Section
In order to attempt to maintain a neutral POV and allow an accurate presentation of differing POV's on the idea I included a "Critic's" Section and took many of the objections found in the text and relocated them to this section. I do not have any citations to support these claims, so I simply noted that citations were needed.
I also fleshed out the information on Modern Adherents and early builders to the ideology from content already on Wiki.
While I have added a number of ref's, more could still be used.
Hopefully this will go to satisfy some of the requests by Wiki in Dec. '06.
Brythstone 20:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Brythstone
This is a good idea. This article is unusual in some respects. A purely religious belief system does not require any citation or documentation. People are entitled to believe whatever they believe. One related idea to this theory is the notion that in the silent years of Jesus' life from age 12 to 30, Jesus visited England. There is a beautiful hymn about it. If one wants to believe that purely as a matter of faith, they have that right, even though there is no factual support for it. Could have happened.
But the British Israel theory is fundamentally different. It portrays as FACT a version of history that is demonstrably untrue. Again, this is argued as historical FACT, NOT religious belief.
Furthermore, the British Israel theory is, and is intended to be, A DIRECT ATTACK UPON JEWS, denying their legitimacy as Israelites, with CURRENT POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS attacking the right of the Jews to live in the land of Israel.
This attack upon the Jews and the political dimensions do not appear in full here, but are all over the internet.
British Israel -- and the idea that only White people can go to heaven -- was used to justify slavery and the religious underpinnings of the Confederacy during the American Civil War. It has been the foundation of the KKK for a century. And today it is the religious underpinnings of neo-Nazis, skinheads, and varius racist groups.
So, I don't think it is appropriate to present as FACT a version of history that is demonstrably FICTION.
As such, the reader seeking knowledge is entitled to a full presentation of what the theory states, in the light most favorable to the proponents of the theory.
RIGHT NOW THE "PRO" SIDE IS A LITTLE WEAK. I THINK THAT THERE IS MORE ATTENTION ON THE CRITICS' SIDE. But since I don't believe in the theory, I don't think I can adequately improve the "pro" side.
But someone should. The reader should be entitled to know what the theory is all about. Someone should improve the part of the article putting forth the British Israel theory in its best light.
ON THE OTHER HAND, the reader should also not be misled. The reader is also entitled to know IF HISTORICAL REALITY AND FACT IS AT STAKE the evidence and information pointing to the more common understanding of historical fact concerning the Israelites.
Consider: If not here, where? There is no better place for the reader to learn about both sides, in order to gain a more well-rounded education and understanding.
-- Jack Stone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.205.167 (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Readability
It looked like this particular subject had been the recipient of a number of edits by opposing POV's. As a result it seemed to be a little confusing and disjointed. I tried to make changes from an objective perspective, and attempted to make the content "flow" better.
Brythstone 23:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Brythstone
[edit] LDS
For discussion on latest removal of material regarding British Israelism and Mormonism see recent addition to Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. B 04:32, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
As a follow up to my comment above, the LDS Church does not teach British Israelism...it NEVER has. People (this means you, Arline, and apparently only you) claiming otherwise (including Mormon missionaries who are NOT the arbiters of LDS Church doctrine and make errors like any other human and of whom more than 90% have never even heard of the phrase "British Israelism") simply misunderstand the Church's doctrines regarding Israelites, chosen people and patriarchal blessings. B 16:23, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Merged material from a much smaller page on Anglo-Israelism as the two terms appear to be synonyms Mokus 16:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Herbert W. Armstrong
I have removed the following text under "Advocates" because it was inaccurate:
The most visible advocate of this doctrine was probably American evangelist Herbert W. Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God. Armstrong frequently used his broadcasts, The World Tomorrow, and particularly the church's magazine, The Plain Truth, to advocate this doctrine. However, in 1995 the church publicly renounced Anglo-Israelism and repented for having advocated it; however, certain breakaway groups from this church still proclaim it, as do some other small evangelical groups.
I don't know who originally wrote this text but it does not reflect the teachings (as they were) of Herbert W. Armstrong, or the splinter groups that came to life after his death. What can be said of the Worldwide Church of God today (2004) is that the only thing that it has in common with the church under Herbert W. Armstrong, is the name and it may be changing that. It has closed its colleges, sold its grounds and is even moving from Pasadena, California. The same is true of the magazine, it is the same in name only, not in content nor in purpose or distribution. Its broadcasts have also been terminated.
There is documentary evidence to show what these beliefs were and it will take some time to find them and create new text. This entire article needs rewriting because it seems to be a hodge-podge that is not well written (which is probably the result of endless changes and edits.)
The problem begins with the opening line which identifies these beliefs with "Germanic peoples", because Armstrong believed that the Germans were not Israelites but Assyrians who were the enemy of the Israelites - old and new. His booklet 1975 in Prophecy! dealt with a German led United States of Europe destroying the USA and UK in a World War III sometime between 1972 and 1975. For this reason alone the present article is a total contradiction of anything that Armstrong taught, no matter how off-beat his actual teaching was. Since this is an encyclopedia the information should at least be accurate. MPLX/MH 04:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Offensive text removed from article to this page
This was on the article page under the heading of "Origins". This is guilt by association and it does not belong in this article. This is the misleading text:
"The roots of the Christian Identity movement can be traced back to British Israelism, the conviction that the British are the lineal descendants of the "ten lost tribes" of Israel. British Israelism was brought to America in the early part of the 1920s, where it was promoted by William Miller and adopted by the Worldwide Church of God."
I also notice that the link to the real originator does not work because there does not seem to be an article about him. I suggest that this is remedied without delay. MPLX/MH 05:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Regarding: BRIT-AM of Israel with Yair Davidiy Today, the leading authority on the Lost Tribes of Israel, and British-Israelism is Yair Davidiy. See: http://britam.org Not only has Mr. Davidiy offered proof of the identity of the lost tribes, but outlines their history, movement, and characteristics given Biblical to specific tribes.
[edit] DNA
Has any DNA research been done on this? Jim62sch 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be an awful lot of crackpot ideas in this article which is fine by me as it's more about people's beliefs than about truth. However I do think there should be a chapter containing scientific scrutiny and general criticism.--Tchoutoye 09:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scots and Declaration of Arbroath
IMHO the paragraph "British Israelism often coincides with British Unionism, but it is worth noting that the Declaration of Arbroath, which declared Scottish independence in 1320 not only mentions a Scythian origin for the Scots, but also a Biblical one, which is used to justify Scotland's sovreignty over itself", besides being badly written, doesn't seem to quite fit in with this section. The Declaration of Arbroath does not explicitly claim descent from the "people of Israel" - the reference could be (and, on the face of it, without further evidence, probably is) just flowery language making a comparison between on the one hand, the Scots making an exodus across a sea from the barbarism of Spain, and entering their own "promised land" of Scotland, and on the other, the Biblical exodus of the Jews from Egypt across a sea into the promised land of Israel.--PeterR 13:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above comment is correct as far as it goes. However, as this is a discussion of British Israelism, it should be noted that some proponents of this idea point to the Scythians as being the offspring of Israelites carried off by the Assyrians. See, for example, the works of contemporary author Steven M. Collins in his four volume series on the lost tribes of Israel (www.israelite.info). I don't claim to know enough of the ancient history of the Mideast to evaluate the claims of Collins and many earlier writers on this topic, but it seems to me reference to it should be included here for the sake of a fuller exposition of the claims of British Israelism proponents.
A reader enquired about DNA testing in ref to British-Israel topic. I contacted the Brian Sykes DNA testing lab, Cambridge, England after I read his book 7 Daughters of Eve, based on a serendipitous DNA discovery. He was working on DNA of Otzi the Austrian iceman and surmised that Otzi had redhair, for a DNA lab control for redhair, Sykes tested his redhair Irish lab tech and not only got a redhair confirmation he got a matrilineal, mitochondrial genotype allolele match as well. This find lead to further studies that led to 7 Daughters of Eve. My request to Sykes if they have a DNA specific screening test for female semitic-hebraic, so a person could establish their semitic-hebraic connection, the response I got was they were working on a patrilineal screen for semitic DNA but it included arabs since they have the preponderance of this genotype. Since men can disseminate their DNA into multiple ethnic populations, this doesn't help me. Women tend to be very conservative and selective in their partners and produce only 1 baby at a time, usually confined to the ethnic group she is in. There are exceptions and I present one as follows. Twice in antiquity semite-hebrews were enslaved and set into Diaspora. I assume human nature then was no different than now in that fertile, fecund semite females were crossbred, interbred by their captors just like fertile, fecund, female african slaves were in the Americas. Offspring of these crossbred, interbred semite-hebrews were part of multiple waves of migration that crossed Asia and Europe. I surmise that the mark of Cain was redhair, Cain got from Adam, which means ruddy man, otherwise why would Cain be so concerned about being readily identified. The ethnic groups that have the highest incidence of redhair are, Jews, Irish, Scandinavians. Its due to these Diaspora migrations redhair spread like it did. It accounts for how Otzi got his redhair, how Sykes' lab tech got her redhair and her DNA match to Otzi. Bible is the story of the Adam/Noah family, it doesn't mention a momma Shem, if one goes out from the notion one is a jew only if the mother is a jew, Yet the notion of semitic and hebrew stem from a patrilineal source, and the only way a viable population could arise from offspring of Ham, Shem, Japeth it stands to resaon these offspring intermingled with each others' offspring. The idea of a single, solitary non-blended familial lineage of just offspring of Shem is genetically impossible to sustain for 5,000 years, the ergo is we are all semite-hebrews, that is why Sykes can not single out which of the 7 Daughters of Eve is solely from momma Shem. In regards to the British-Israel discussion author Michael Tsarion reverses the entire process and claims that ancient Irish disseminated their culture and civilization to the Mideast, Egypt, just like they did to Europe when the Roman Empire there collapsed. He bases it upon Celtic-Gaelic language and druidic religion. I can't reach Tsarion to ask him where is his proof the Irish had redhair before Adam/ Noah generation. If there is a reader or wiki editor who can contact Tsarion and get his DNA track record to match Brian Sykes, it would lend credibility to Tsarion's theory.Jaako 01:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ulster-Scots
"While still obscure, British Israelism has a vocal presence in Northern Ireland, particularly among proponents of the Ulster-Scots cultural movement.[citation needed]"
84.45.131.142 This is not based on fact. There are British Israelites throughout the UK. The Ulster-Scots movement or indeed Unionists or Loyalists in Northern Ireland cannot be labelled as "proponents" of BI since the overwhelming majority are not.
[edit] Tara
84.45.131.142 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC) "The now defunct loyalist paramilitary organisation, Tara, espoused a British Israelite philosophy"
Again your cited source ( http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:aVsYma0YM-4J:www.irish-association.org/archives/stevebruce11_oct03.html+tara+loyalist+israelism&hl=en )actually cites that William McGrath the founder of Tara was a proponent of BI, not that the Tara organisation was.
[edit] masonry?
I've heard this idea is popular among many British Free-Masons as part of the whole Knights Templar mythology.
[edit] Teamhair na Rí/Plain of the Kings/Tara)
These are the nutcases who came over to the Hill of Tara in Meath and started digging it up between the years 1899-1902. They believed there was some Ark of the Covenant there. They destroyed the place, the seat of the ancient High Kings of Ireland. That is what the British Israelites are best known for in Ireland. There is a new book on their role in Tara writted by Mairéad Carew called 'Tara and the Ark of the Covenant'. There is loads of information online about it. Here's an article about it from The Irish Times, July 28, 2005: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/71184 El Gringo 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stone of destiny / Jacob's Pillar / Lia Fail
How did this precious Israelite treasure arrive in the Brittish Isles? What is it? Where is it now?
To find out, read the articles found at http://jahtruth.net/liafail.htm
These well written articles are very informative and they shed light on this sublect like never before.
-
- What gives you the idea that this is a "precious Israelite treasure"?!
I'd suggest that the answers to your questions are, in order - it didn't, the product of your imagination, and nowhere. --Apeloverage 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- The stone might not be the product of his imagination, but then it ain't "precious Israelite treasure" either.
[edit] Contradiction about the dates of earliest migration
This statement seems to be contradictory (my emphasis):
The ancient scholars Bede and Tacticus both agree[9] that before the time of Christ German and Teutonic tribes began to migrate to the British Isles forcing the early Britons to the western portion of Britain. The earliest settlers were the Angles and Jutes, followed by the "Great Saxon Invasion" (between 450 and 600 AD)
Thefuguestate 10:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I presume it means 'Tacitus', not 'Tacticus'? Thefuguestate 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Contradiction about dates
Good points, I changed the wording re: the dates of the German "conquest".
Also, yes, you were right about "Tacitus" vs. "Tacticus". Fixed now.
Thanks
Brythstone 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)brythstone
[edit] Orange Order, British Christian Zionism
Does anyone care to tell me what is the connection between the Orange Order and British Israelites? Which sect did Orde Wingate belong to? Is there a list of famous believers such as Cromwell, Newton, Blake, Lloyd George and Churchill, who may or may not have been initiates? If such a list were to be found it would explain the course of the British Empire and the situation of present day Britain in a new light.
Wool Bridge (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jeremiah / Tea Tephi
I propose we add a new section to the article: one detailing the belief that the current British royal family is descended from David, Solomon, etc through Tea Tephi, reputedly the daughter of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah. The theory alleges that the Judean princess, having been whisked away to Ireland by the prophet Jeremiah, marries the son of an Irish king. Essentially, this royal line goes on to oversee the conquest of parts of Scotland (Dál Riata); the royal line becomes the Scottish Monarchy; with King James I the Scottish Monarchy becomes the English Monarchy; England becomes the United Kingdom, and the rest is history. It seems to be a pretty common explanation used by British Israelists. It's quite interesting; there's numerous websites out there espousing and debunking it; and I think it warrants a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knyght27 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Franco-Israelism
Re: Franco-Israelism (Gallic) merged into British-Israelism (Anglo-Saxon).
Not a good idea. Like Apples and Oranges. Gallic esoteric ideas concerning Israel have nothing at all in common with British Israelism, the cultural difference is massive, for one thing.
Let's get the British Israelism article right. It's still a right mess.
Wfgh66 (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree and will remove the merge tag. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
