An Israelite by Any Other Name . . .

Due to the belief that the Israelites eventually failed to remember they were Israelites, Anglo-Israelists assert that the northern tribes show up again in history under a different name. This is where the Scythians come in. Some Anglo-Israelists believe this people group,[1] and in some cases the Cimmerians, were the ten northern tribes. These Anglo-Israelists claim that after the Ten Tribes were exiled to the cities of Medes, they eventually moved to an area near the Caspian Sea, ending up in the Black Sea region, where they became known as the Sacae (variations include Saka or Sakai), a line of the Scythians. Anglo-Israelists contend that a branch of the Sacae came to be called Saxons. They argue that this people group originated with Isaac.

Supporters of this notion rely heavily on historian Sharon Turner, who published The History of the Anglo-Saxons in 1840.[2] In his book, Turner provides the theory that the Saxons were formerly a branch of the Sacae.

To avoid confusion, it should be noted that, in certain works, the term “Scythians” referred to several Germanic tribes. Also, some contend that the label Saka itself was employed for just about any migrating people. It could be used in the same way we use our generalized term for “immigrant.” However, Turner based his claims on the classical Scythians mentioned by Greek historian Herodotus.

Turner provides some reasons for why he believed the Saxons shared an ancestry with the Sacae. For Turner, there appeared to be some etymological evidence for it. He cites a few historical eyewitnesses. For example, the Roman author Pliny wrote that the Sakai were part of the notable people of Scythia and that some of them were called Sacassani.[3] Turner concludes that the Sacassani were “Sakai-suna, or the sons of the Sakai, abbreviated into Saksun, which is the same sound as Saxon.”[4] He saw this as a “reasonable etymology of the word Saxon.”[5]

Turner also cites Strabo, who places the Sacae, a branch of the Scythians, east of the Caspian Sea. This group had made raids into Armenia, eventually renaming it Sacasene after themselves.[6] Turner takes this a step farther in an attempt to link the Sacasene with the Saxons:

“If the Sakai, who reached Armenia, were called Sacassani, they may have traversed Europe with the same appellation; which being pronounced by the Romans from them, and then reduced to writing from their pronunciation, may have been spelt with the x instead of the ks, and thus Saxones would not be a greater variation from Sacassani or Saksuna, than we find between French, Francois, Franci.” [7]

This is a bit too rambling for most, so Anglo-Israelists tend to repeatedly cite another passage from Turner:

“It is also important to remark, that Ptolemy mentions a Scythian people, sprung from the Sakai, by the name of Saxones.” [8]

This information is important for the Anglo-Israelist for it provides a direct historical account between the Sacae and the Saxons and eliminates Turner’s theorizing. When it comes to Ptolemy, there is a highly flawed English translation of his book Geography, performed by Edward Luther Stevenson in 1932. However, it is generally known that Ptolemy places the Saxones in Germania. Providing a location for the Saxones is all he does, however. There is no indication that Ptolemy describes the origin of the Saxones as having come from the Sakai (Sacae).

Turner seems to have combined the Saxones with another people group mentioned by Ptolemy called the Sasones. Turner later alludes to this in his notes when he writes, “North of the Sacae, and near the Syebian and Tapurian mountains [Iran], Ptolemy has placed another people, the Sasones.”[9] Turner apparently assumes that the Sasones are ancestors of the Saxones.

However, Ptolemy does not claim this. It is Turner who contends that the Sasones and Saxones were one and the same. Ptolemy only provides the location of the Sasones and Saxones. He offers two different locations for them. The Sasones were in Iran, and the Saxones were in Germania. By recording this, Ptolemy implies that the Sasones and Saxones were distinct from one another. In addition, even without an accurate English translation, we can surmise by reading the title of Ptolemy’s work that he is interested in the location of people groups. He is not concerned about their origin as Turner is.

When Turner writes, “It is also important to remark, that Ptolemy mentions a Scythian people, sprung from the Sakai, by the name of Saxones” he is making two assumptions: that the Saxones were the Sasones and that the Saxons were originally Sacae. This is his conjecture. It is not the witness of Ptolemy. Turner is putting words in Ptolemy’s mouth to have a supposed ancient observer who believed as he did.

Even if one wants to believe that the Saxon people came from a branch of the Sacae, the truth is, Turner himself never once suggests that the Saxons were originally Israelites. He contends that the Saxons were originally Persian (Iranian). He writes, “Sakasina…seems to give a geographical locality to our primeval ancestors, and to account for the Persian words that occur in the Saxon language, as they must have come into Armenia from the northern regions of Persia.”[10]

Obviously, Anglo-Israelists are not able to accept Turner’s conclusion that the Saxons originated from Iran. If they did, this would mean the Saxons were from Noah’s grandson Madai (Noah > Japheth > Madai) and not descendants of the ten northern tribes of Israel. It is doubtful that most today believe the Saxons were initially Iranian, so Turner’s conclusions are erroneous to even those outside of Anglo-Israelism. However, it is probable that the Scythians/Sacae were originally from Iran, with no connection whatsoever to the Saxons, who were just one of many ancient people groups migrating through the Black Sea region.

[1] Wilson, Our Israelitish Origin, p. 97.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Sharon Turner, The History of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. 1 (Paris: Baudry’s European Library, 1840), p. 59 https://books.google.com.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Strabo’s Geography can be viewed online at www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collections, (book 11, chap. 8).

[7] Turner, The History of the Anglo-Saxons, p. 60.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., p. 66 – footnote (d).

[10] Ibid., p. 59.

Just Call Me Saac

It is likely that the Saxon name originated from the short sword this people group used. This sword was called a seax or sek, which can be pronounced sax, hence Saxon.[1] Despite this straightforward explanation, Anglo-Israelists insist the term “Saxon” originated with Isaac. Anglo-Israelist writer John Wilson utilizes bits and pieces of Turner’s work to claim the Scythians (Sacae) were Israelites. Wilson writes, “Saxon is, literally, or fully expressed, the son of Isaac.”[2] In other words, to Wilson, Saxon is Saac’s sons. This is a very cunning play on words, which has served as a kind of billboard for the Anglo-Israelist system.

From a biblical perspective, the tribes of Israel were named after Jacob. God changed Jacob’s name to Israel. Nonetheless, in Genesis 48:16, Joseph’s sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, were told by Jacob that his name, as well as those of Abraham and Isaac, would be on the two boys. This pronouncement was fulfilled during the time of Amos, prior to the Assyrian takeover where the Northern Kingdom was referred to as the “house of Isaac.”[3] Anglo-Israelists use the phrase “house of Isaac” to claim it eventually evolved into Sacae and then Saxon (Saac’s sons).[4]

By placing his name, as well as his father’s name, on Joseph’s two sons, Jacob was stating that the two boys belonged to him or held a connection to his line. In placing your name on something, the link between you and that person or object should be obvious. It should not require a long dissertation or a select group of men to figure it out. In like manner, Saxon does not provide a clear or obvious association with Isaac.

In addition, the fact that the expression “house of Isaac” was used during Amos’s time shows that this pronouncement by Jacob was fulfilled already. There is no reason to look for it later in history. Furthermore, proposing a link between Saac’s sons and Saxon is based on a false premise. Isaac was not called Saac in the Bible.

As we have seen, Anglo-Israelists base many of their conclusions on the etymology of the words Sacae or Saka-suna, claiming it eventually forms into the word Saxon (Saac’s sons) which, to them, proves the Saxons were descendants of Isaac. Again, this is not easy to believe based on what they have already told us. If we are to conclude that the Israelites eventually lose their identity, we need to ask, how did the word Saxon (Saac’s sons) even come into use? If the Israelites did not know who they were and no one around them knew who they were, it is difficult to accept that they eventually ended up being called a version of Saac’s sons since their connection to their supposed patriarch was supposedly lost long ago. These two beliefs end up contradicting one another.

[1] “sek,” www.etymonline.com.

[2] Wilson, Our Israelitish Origin, p. 97.

[3] Amos 7:16.

[4] “House of Isaac,” https://www.bibletools.org.

Don’t Eat That

Another way Anglo-Israelists attempt to make a connection between the Israelites and the general people group referred to as “Scythians” is by highlighting a particular animal the Scythians avoided. As we know, God commanded the Israelites not to eat pork.[1] This observance of the law has continued to this day for the followers of Judaism. Due to this long history of not consuming pork, Anglo-Israelists look to Herodotus who describes the Scythians as having a similar aversion to swine:

“Such are the observances of the Scythians with respect to sacrifice. They never use swine for the purpose, nor indeed is it their wont to breed them in any part of their country.” [2], [3]

Anglo-Israelists believe this passage adds further support to their notion of the Scythians being Israelites. The difficulty with this is the Scythians did not hold a monopoly on viewing the pig as an abominable animal. The Assyrians, too, thought it to be an unholy creature and abomination.[4] Muslims also held and continue to hold an aversion to pork. The general agreement among non-Muslims is that this influence originated with those within Judaism. In this same way, it is reasonable to conclude others simply influenced the Scythians.

While pointing out this dislike for the pig, supporters tend to ignore the other ways in which Herodotus describes the Scythians. Herodotus says that they were well skilled on horseback, that they sacrificed cattle but were more inclined to offer up horses, and that they used their enemies’ skulls as drinking cups. This use of human skulls as drinking vessels was not only employed on strangers. If there was a feud between relatives, they did the same, offering the skull of their victim to visitors to drink while proudly recounting the conquest. Their barbaric ways were also apparent in how they made cloaks from the scalps of their enemies. As for their origins, according to Herodotus, they had several tales, one of which claimed that their first king, Targitaüs, was a son of Zeus (Jove). Herodotus discounts this as a fable.[5]

There is little, if any, success in attempting to reconcile this group with the Israelites. Historically, the Israelites were goat and sheepherders, who viewed a dead body as unclean and who had a rich oral history. The Scythians that Herodotus describes and that Turner alludes to in his work sound more like an Arabian tribe with a barbarian nature, equestrian skills, and who were all too willing to do detestable things to the human body. These characteristics do not equate to the Israelites.

Furthermore, Herodotus wrote his account of the Scythians around 440 BC. This is about 282 years after the final Assyrian deportation of the northern tribes. Are we to believe that everyone within the Scythian society completely forgot their so-called Israelite heritage in less than three hundred years? One could see them failing to remember the law (2 Kings 22) or falling deeper into idolatry, but to cease to recall everything about themselves in that short amount of time is not easy to accept. This is similar to claiming that, in the present year, everyone in the United States would have forgotten about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Some have little knowledge of American history, but, obviously, not everyone has failed to recall this history.

In the end, to assert the idea of the Scythians being Israelites, supporters must rely on two false premises:

The northern tribes moved far from the Middle East shortly after the Assyrian exile.
God caused the Israelites to forget everything about themselves.

As shown, both ideas contradict the biblical text. Furthermore, it is more likely that the northern tribes, and particularly those possessing a skilled trade, remained in Medes after the Assyrian deportation and assimilated into Assyrian society. For many, life went on as it had prior to the exile with one glaring exception of not being home.

We know the Israelites were wayward in their relationship to God, so remaining in a culture that was tolerant of other religions was perhaps not much of a hardship. They had no reason to journey off to some unknown place as 2 Esdras claims. They did, however, have one important reason to stay in the region, and it was for a promise that shined through even their lukewarm hearts: the assurance of the coming of the Messiah through the line of Judah. Knowing this, they would have wanted to remain close to their brother Judah and not journey away to a land that promised them nothing.[6]

[1] Pigs are categorized in the Bible as being unclean, and some equate “unclean” with unhealthy. They believe this is why God didn’t want the Israelites to eat pork because it was unhealthy to eat. However, the Hebrew word for unclean should be understood to mean ceremonially or religiously unclean. It does not mean unhealthy in the physical sense.

Some may point to Daniel’s diet in Daniel 1 and how he refused to eat meat from the king’s table. It has been suggested that the king was consuming pork, and Daniel’s refusal of it was due to health concerns. However, if we notice, Daniel also did not drink wine from the king’s table. Therefore, the reason Daniel abstained from both meat and wine was that it had been ceremonially offered to idols. Daniel had no clean meat to eat, so he and his companions had to essential become vegetarians.

The New Testament teaches that a believer is at liberty to consume foods once forbidden. If pork was harmful to consume, the New Testament would not allow its consumption. In other words, health concerns were probably not the cause for the original command in light of the New Testament’s attitude on the subject.

A better reason for this directive which focuses on the spiritual aspects of human beings is that God wanted to keep the Israelites from idolatry. The Israelites were to be a people separate and distinct from the pagan nations surrounding them. Having a different diet assisted with both these goals, for when the Israelites were prohibited from eating what pagans generally consumed, they were less likely to have community with them. God most likely told the Israelites to avoid pork and other unclean foods to keep them spiritually healthy and to maintain their distinctiveness of being God’s people.

If believers are inclined to stay away from pork, then they are at liberty to do so. However, in reading about the subject in the New Testament, it is clear those who hold to these types of Israelite practices are considered weak in the faith (Romans 14:1-2). Supporters may want to examine why this is.

[2] Rawlinson, The History of Herodotus, p. 312.

[3] Herodotus’s observation concerning the Scythians’ treatment of the pig could be interpreted as the Scythians revering the pig. This could be why they did not sacrifice it or want it in their country since they viewed it as a sacred animal. In like manner, it has been debated whether the Egyptians, at one point, viewed the pig as abominable or as sacred. See Egyptian Myth and Legend, by Donald Mackenzie p. 65 and Sir James George Frazer’s The Golden Bough, chapter 49, section 4 (Osiris, the Pig, and the Bull) at www.sacred-texts.com to see the differing opinions on the Egyptian’s view of the pig.

[4] W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), pp. 213 and 215 (v. 16), https://books.google.com.

[5] Rawlinson, The History of Herodotus, pp. 288-312.

[6] Obviously, the Jews eventually did disperse to lands beyond the Middle East, but it is interesting that only happened after Christ’s ministry on earth. God gave the Israelites a chance to repent and to believe in His Son. The supposed Ten Lost Tribes would not have been given the opportunity since, according to the theory, they were nowhere near the Middle East region. This idea of non-local Israelite tribes not being given the opportunity to believe in their Messiah again places God in a bad light.

During his ministry, it is true that Paul’s intention was to travel as far as Spain. From this, some claim he went even farther. However, his purpose in doing this was not to minister to his fellow Israelites supposedly living in some distant land, but it was to minister to non-Israelites. Remember, the gospel came first to Israel then to those not of Israel. Anglo-Israelism simply does not mesh with this.

Caucasians

Anglo-Israelists believe there is an obvious way in which they can prove they are Israelites. They claim the ancient Israelites were white, and since Anglo-Saxons are also white, they conclude they are Israelites. What diminishes this argument is that even some Anglo-Israelists recognize that not all white-skinned people were or are Israelites.[1] However, to distinguish themselves from other white people groups, Anglo-Israelites claim to be descendants of those so-called journeying Israelites who moved into the Black Sea region who eventually traveled on to Germany and England. Some amend this tale by claiming that when the Israelites passed through the Caucasus Mountains on their way to Germany and England, they were bestowed with the name Caucasians. However, no one was referred to as a Caucasian until the late 1700s. The word was not invented until that time.

The Book of Gates

For those who believe only the Israelites were white, there is a funerary text called The Book of Gates produced during the New Kingdom period (sixteenth to eleventh century BC). This ancient artifact contains a rendering of the four races known to the Egyptians. The Book of Gates itself does not categorize these races. It depicts them in an inscription and describes how each of them were created. The way in which they are described in the following quotes is the work of E. A. Wallis Budge in 1905. These classifications and descriptions may or may not be correct:

RETH = “Egyptians.” They are shown to be light reddish-brown.

AAMU = “Dwellers in the deserts to the east and north-east of Egypt.” Today, this would be Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon. This group is shown to be white.

NEHESU = “Black races.”

THEMEHU = “Fair-skinned Libyans [Berbers].” They are shown, just like the AAMU, to be white.[2], [3]

The illustration, along with the inscription, shows and describes four distinct people groups. Two of these have white skin whose dress is unique from one another. This image would suggest being white was not unique to those of Israel. Therefore, the attempt to make a connection between Anglo-Saxons and Israelites on skin color alone loses its validity since Anglo-Saxons could have descended from this other white group, or another white group the Egyptians didn’t even know existed.

Other Fallacies

Attempting to make a familial connection by way of skin color and facial features can sometimes lead to erroneous conclusions. For example, if a white man with white grandparents marries a black woman and they have a black child, the black child would be wrong in saying his white grandparents are not related to him because they are white. Connecting oneself to a people group based solely on skin color is not entirely dependable since skin color can change within one generation. This type of classification is not exact in determining origin. And the fact that it is flawed means it is not biblical.

We’ll leave to others to argue whether UV rays play a role in skin color (those closer to the equator have darker skin than those farther away, at least before the age of advanced transportation). From a biblical perspective, if you take the hard-line position and assert that only the Israelites were white, then this means only Shem was white and Noah’s other sons, Japheth and Ham, were not. This does not work, unless you are willing to suggest inbreeding (i.e., a brother marrying his sister) continued after the biblical flood event, which gets quite uncomfortable to believe. Due to this, you would have to agree that Shem’s descendants needed to have married into their uncles’ descendants, who would also need to be white according to this theory.

If you believe Noah’s other son Japheth was at least white, then you are diminishing your argument that whiteness can determine your connection to the Israelites since Japheth could be the ancestor of the Anglo-Saxons. Furthermore, we know Shem had other descendants other than Arphaxad (Abraham’s ancestor), as recorded in Genesis 10:22. These other sons (Elam, Asshur, Lud, and Aram) could have also carried the white gene that eventually led to the Anglo-Saxon race.

Let us also not forget that Joseph married an Egyptian. The depiction in The Book of Gates suggests, at least at that point in history when the illustrations were produced, that the Egyptians had brown-reddish toned skin. Even if you claim Joseph’s Egyptian wife was somehow white, she still more than likely carried the brown-reddish skin tone trait; therefore, the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, who were Joseph’s descendants, would have held these same genes within them.

Some Christians suggest that Noah’s sons contained all the skin color genes found in humankind. Those who hold to this idea correctly explain that race is a man-made system of categorization founded by the racist arm of the Evolutionary Theory and that the Bible never speaks of race as a dividing factor, but rather commanded the avoidance of certain tribes during the Israelite period who were following pagan ways. These Christians rightfully see the result of this fabricated system as a means to separate believers of different skin color from each other.[4]

[1] “Israel’s Lost Tribes,” americanwisdomseries.com/1064.html.

[2] E. A. Wallis Budge, trans., The Book of Gates (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1905), chap. 6, pp. 151-155, www.sacred-texts.com.

[3] The actual illustration of these races can be found online by searching “The Book of Gates.”

[4] It is perhaps human nature to self-segregate. Hence, the reason we still have different “races.” There is nothing particularly wrong with this or necessarily right about it either. It simply is human nature. People tend to want to be with those who are like them. This self-segregation can get rather specific, particularly during the teenage years. Teens gravitate toward those who dress the same, have the same hairstyle, and so forth. Most outgrow this rigid form of segregation as they mature.

The Declaration of Arbroath

In moving away from the topic of skin color, Anglo-Israelists assert they have another supposed piece of evidence of the Anglo-Saxons, particularly the Scots, being Israelites. They point to a document known as The Declaration of Arbroath, a letter written in 1320 to Pope John XXII concerning Scottish Independence from English kings. The letter declares the support for Robert the Bruce’s native reign over Scotland.

Within this document, the author begins by describing a bit of Scottish history by telling of the initial journey of the Scots to Scotland. Anglo-Israelists specifically quote the lines, “Most Holy Father, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. It journeyed from Greater Scythia[1] by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage peoples, but nowhere could it be subdued by any people, however barbarous. Thence it came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to its home in the west where it still lives today.”[2]

Anglo-Israelists take the phrase between the commas, “twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea,” to mean the author of this document was stating that the Scots were the Israelites who crossed the Red Sea.[3] Anglo-Israelists interpret it this way due to their adherence to the manufactured histories of Reverend Glover.[4] However, no ancient Irish/Scottish history explains that the Scots were Israelites. In fact, they linked themselves to Japheth.

By referring to the Israelites, the author of The Declaration of Arbroath is simply providing a period of twelve hundred years. The early historians of British history often mentioned biblical events alongside their genealogies to give their readers a familiar timeframe. For example, when historians of this region wrote about a particular ruler of their day, they would cite a biblical event that occurred in concert with that reign. Similarly, to give the reader a timeframe, the writer for this document informs us that the Scots were on the move twelve hundred years after the Israelites crossed the Red Sea.

Due to the sentence structure, it is also evident that the author of this letter did not intend to claim the Scots were Israelites. If he had, he would have begun his historical summary with the crossing of the Red Sea. He would not have placed it as an insert (between two commas) into the main point of his sentence. Notice also that “the people of Israel” are spoken of as a separate people group. It is not the Scots crossing the Red Sea. It is the people of Israel.

Furthermore, deciding to include this bit of so-called history into a letter addressed to Pope John XXII would have been political suicide. It would have made the Scots the laughingstock of the church. At this time, no one believed the Scots were Israelites. Proclaiming such a belief in a document where your sole aim was to get the pope to side with you regarding who should rule Scotland would have been a disastrous political move.

[1] There is a long tradition concerning St. Andrew being well regarded in Scotland. According to Eusebius, St. Andrew was given Scythia to go and preach the Good News. Some theorize Scotland’s longtime reverence to St. Andrew was due to the explanation found in old myths of the Scots being from Scythia. Due to this, the Scots believed it was to their ancestors whom St. Andrew preached.

One source for this myth is found in the Lebor Gabála Érenn. This manuscript contains the notion of the Scythians being descendants of Magog’s supposed son identified in this source as Baath (the Bible does not provide the names of Magog’s sons). The myth accounts Baath as having a familial link to the Scythians who eventually became known as the Gaels. Magog’s other son, referred to as Ibath, was believed to be the ancestor of the Saxons (Lebor Gabála Érenn - https://archive.org, pt. 1, p. 167).

Biblically, Magog is associated with the area north of Israel, the Black Sea region. This is probably why the Scots linked the Scythians to Magog, a descendant of Japheth. As a result, the Scots during the Middle Ages may have believed they were from Scythia, but they thought this people were descendants of Japheth. They did not think they were Israelites.

[2] Alan Borthwick, comp., The Declaration of Arbroath (The National Archives of Scotland, 2005) http://www.nas.gov.uk/about/090401.asp.

[3] “David’s Throne Found in Britain,” https://www.cai.org.

[4] “Tea-Tephi Never Existed?” https://www.cai.org.

Return to England or Bust Section