It is insightful to learn how the teaching of British Israelism is perceived by an individual outside of the identity movement. Therefore, who better than the author of a Research Paper, which ‘examines how the white supremacist movement Christian Identity emerged from [the] non-extremist forerunner known as British Israelism.’ The paper was presented by J M Berger in April 2017, for the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague. Berger ‘is an Associate Fellow at ICCT. He is a researcher, analyst and consultant, with a special focus on extremist activities in the U.S. and use of social media.’

Though it is not my intention to include his summations on the Christian Identity movement, I will reproduce sections of the earlier part of his paper regarding British Israelism as well as a portion of the conclusion. The paper is entitled: Extremist Construction of Identity: How Escalating Demands for Legitimacy Shape and Define In-Group and Out-Group Dynamics – emphasis & bold mine throughout, except book and article titles. What I found interesting, is Berger relies heavily on the work by J H Allen, published in 1902, Judah’s Sceptre & Joseph’s Birthright. As I consider this the most definitive material on the subject, at least the author had a comprehensive and relatively objective expounding of the doctrine as his prime text.

“British Israelism was a historical theory originating in the late 19th century, which stipulated with varying degrees of specificity that the “Chosen People” of the Old Testament – known as the Israelites – were the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxon “race”. In its very earliest iteration, the theory held that many Europeans were (unknowingly) Jewish. But this swiftly gave way to an argument that Europeans were the descendants and heirs of the Chosen People of Israel, distinct from a Jewish identity.”

This distinction with the Jews, whether by design or accident, highlights the fact that the Jews and British are not one and the same. They are immediate cousins, stemming from the twin brothers Esau and Jacob [refer Chapter XXIX Esau and Chapter XXX Judah & Benjamin]. British Israelism was more than ‘a historical theory’, it is also a biblical doctrine; albeit not of mainstream Christianity. It also has its roots considerably earlier than the ‘late 19th century’.

“British Israelism constructed an in-group identity with two primary and interrelated components: nation and race. Adherents believed Anglo-Saxons were a distinct race descended from the so-called “lost tribes” of the nation of Israel described in the Bible. “

The term Anglo-Saxon is misleading, for the Saxons were a body of people which comprised specific tribes, such as the Angles, Jutes and Frisians. Genetically, they were kin of the Celtic peoples of Britain and Ireland, as were the Vikings and Normans. Thus, a more accurate description would be the Celtic-Saxon-Vikings. Plus, there are broadly three original racial lines of humankind and these diverged into sixteen main lineages of descent [refer Chapter I Noah]. The ‘Anglo-Saxons’ therefore are not a race, but rather a unique ethnicity or ancestry group, as say Germans or the Jews.

“The fate of these tribes is unclear in canonical texts, although later apocryphal works and religious and historical theories offer a variety of clues or explanations for their disappearance. “

What Berger possibly does not realise, is that there is a large body of evidence to show the migratory path of the Israelites post captivity and their sojourning northwards, into both Southern [Parthia] and Central Asia [Scythia], as well as southeastern Europe [Cimmerians]; all leading to Western Europe [Gauls] and finally the British Isles. 

“British Israelists theorised that the lost tribes had migrated to Europe and seeded a race of white Europeans, who were the rightful beneficiaries of covenants with God that had been documented in the Christian Old Testament. British Israelism did not entirely exclude modern Jews from the racial and religious line of God’s “chosen people”, Rather, the theory initially sought to extend the biblical status of the “chosen” to the race of Anglo-Saxons and the nation of the British Empire (and later to the United States). As the movement solidified, the idea was fleshed out in a torrent of extremely dense, pseudo-academic studies.”

The promises to Abraham pertaining to his descendants including birthright tribes of a ‘great’ nation and a ‘company of nations’ or union of states has been accomplished through the nations of Canada and the United States of America [refer chapter XXXIII Manasseh & Ephraim – the Birthright Tribes]. The promise of a Royal tribe with a prominent monarchy like no other has been fulfilled in the nation of England [refer Chapter XXX Judah & Benjamin – the Regal Tribes]. One could say all research of a historical nature which does not fit the curriculum of orthodox, mainstream disciplines are ‘pseudo-academic studies’. This does not make them any less relevant or true. It invariably means the foundations of orthodox history require re-visiting and re-interpretation. Either that, or deliberate fraud is being perpetrated in the effort to conceal intellectual dishonesty or error.

“Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright, published in 1902 by J. H. Allen, represents a mature explanation of the ideology. The book also stands out as one of the more accessible and influential works in a field overstuffed with elaborate scriptural citations, biblical genealogies and the parsing of Hebrew names against other names and words with similar sounds. In Barkun’s words, British Israelists “mimick(ed) techniques of historical scholarship, so that conclusions might be advanced not merely as statements of faith but as intersubjectively testable knowledge”. 

In keeping with the general outline shared by most British Israelist theorists, Allen argues that thenation of Israel described in the Bible has been misunderstood by mainstream scholars as an exclusively Jewish state. He claims the lost tribes of Israel migrated to the British Isles and survive today as Anglo-Saxons, constituting a separate nation and a semi-distinct race from the tribe of Judah, whose descendants are modern-day Jews. 

In Allen’s iteration of British Israelist theory, scriptures are deployed to support a claim that Anglo-Saxons and Jews descend from a single bloodlinein antiquity that eventually separated into somewhat distinct races, relying on the extensive genealogies chronicled in the Old Testament. The importance of these familial distinctions relate to various Old Testament covenants that promised future greatness to the descendants of Abraham. 

Allen separates these covenants according to whom they were promised, resulting in a “birthright” line, destined to be the “father of many nations”, and a distinct “sceptre” line, which he interprets as the royal line of David, through the tribe of Judah, from which Jesus Christ would be born. A notable component of this genealogical history involves junctures in the biblical narrative in which the birthright takes unexpected turns. Allen relates several examples in which the birthright does not proceed to the firstborn son, either due to God’s expressed preferences or due to actions taken by the men involved (for instance, when God chooses Jacob, the younger son of Isaac, to receive his birthright, instead of the older son, Esau). 

In Allen’s view – which he defends with a mix of biblical citations, folklore and arcane symbology – the lost tribes are heirs to the nation of Israel, distinct from the Jewish people.”

This is especially more critical, once it is understood that the Jewish people are not the tribe of Judah or Benjamin, Simeon and Levi; but rather Jacob’s brother, Esau. Hence, they are a different line of descent which has been confused with the British and Irish peoples. It is interesting to note that Berger is broadly labelling all historical material on the subject as ‘folklore’ thus relegating its authority to the level of myth. One would suspect that if his view were truly neutral without bias or that if he had performed extensive research, he would not have used that particular word. The word legend would be acceptable – for it does not carry the connotation of being imaginary or false – if one could not bring themselves to use the word history. 

“The biblical sources are a mix of what Allen presents as literal history and interpreted prophecy. From folklore, Allen selects data points useful to his argument, such as legends surrounding the “Stone of Scone,” an artifact used in the coronation of English monarchs, said to have originally belonged to the biblical patriarch Jacob. In the realm of symbology, later in the text, Allen veers into increasingly fervid flights of imagination. For example, he finds meaningful parallels between a biblical reference to a “scarlet thread” linked to the “sceptre” bloodline and the British flag, which has literal scarlet threads woven into its fabric.”

If Berger had researched further into the typology of the colour red in the Bible – specifically with regard to Edom [which means ‘red’] and Judah – and in the countries of Northern Ireland and England, his view may not be so veered towards thinking it stems from passionate ‘imagination’ [refer Chapter XXX Judah & Benjamin and Chapter XXXI Reuben, Simeon, Levi & Gad].

“Taken together, Allen argues, all of these data points prove that Anglo-Saxons are the rightful heirs to God’s promises, specifically a promise that the descendants of the biblical figure Ephraim would father “many nations” or “a company of nations”, which Allen casts as a prefigurement of the British Empire. He further separates one of the lost tribes – linked to the biblical figure Manasseh – as antecedent to the United States, making Americans rightful heirs of a prophecy that Manasseh’s descendants would one day form “a great nation” in the singular. Allen does not stop with this elevation of Anglo-Saxon destiny, however. He takes it a step further and argues that the “sceptre”, or royal line, has passed from the Jews to Israel, meaning the Anglo-Saxon tribes.”

This gravely highlights the problem with ascribing an incorrect identity to England. The royal line was not passed from Judah to Israel, for England is the true tribe of Judah. 

The Jews have never had the Sceptre promises, for they are Edom and not Judah. Manasseh means ‘forgotten’ and it is the forgotten ‘great nation’, Canada – ‘in the singular.’ Whereas, the United States is the true country comprised of ‘many nations’ or states, all with their own governments and identities held together by a federal government – e pluribus unum [‘out of many, one’].

“Judah’s Sceptre is heavily concerned with distinctions of race, but these are important primarily as it concerns the proper inheritance of God’s prophesied blessings. In a chapter titled “Race Versus Grace”, Allen mounts an argument that both race and grace (meaning religiously correct belief and action) are necessary for Israel to fulfil prophecy and establish the word of God on Earth.

This formulation frames British Israelism as an ethno-nationalist movement with some significant loopholes and exceptions for those who are willing to assimilate. 

One key exception applies to the Jews. Allen portrays the rift between the Israelites and the Jews as religious and historical in nature, rather than intrinsically racial, and he argues that Anglo-Saxon “Israel” will eventually be reunited with the Jews in accordance with prophecy. As Allen explains, “The brotherhood is still broken, but it shall be mended” (emphasis in original). For Allen, the shared racial heritage of Jews and Anglo-Saxons unites more than it divides.”

This is where it does become clouded and where this writer disagrees with Allen and all who subscribe to the Jews being Judah. Berger is right to note the racial disparity with, but equally over riding the historical or religious differences. The Jews, though related are a different ethnicity from the British and Irish descended peoples. True Judah did reunite with the other tribes in the British Isles, as England.

“Implicit but essential to this racial calculus is some manner of patronising superiority and ultimate sovereignty over the world’s other races. But despite the centrality of race to his argument, Allen neglects to mention – in the course of nearly 100,000 words – how people of African or Asian descent might be impacted by the ascendance of divinely ordained Anglo-Saxon hegemony, aside from a tangential note that the abolition of slavery in the West was morally correct and in accordance with prophecy.” 

It possibly suits Berger to think that Allen is advocating racial supremacy; for his whole intent in his paper is to show the roots of Christian Identity and of racist ideology. Anyone who is well acquainted with the biblical promises, prophecies and instructions from the Eternal, knows that ‘patronising superiority’ was not the intention, but rather humble service.

“Earlier iterations of the British Israelite theory were slightly more forthcoming on this point. The earliest formal statement of British Israelism as a distinct ideology was the 1876 tract, Lectures on Our Israelitish Origin. The book’s author, John Wilson, is described by Barkun as a key figure in institutionalising the ideology as a movement.”

I am not aware of who Barkun is, though as Berger quotes him more than once and as Barkun appears to be an opponent of British Israelism, I wonder how much Barkun has coloured – no pun intended – and influenced Berger’s view?

“In Lectures, Wilson presents a fairly typical theory of the time, describing three “major races” that branch off from the sons of Noah – Shem (white), Ham (black), and Japheth (Asian and indigenous people such as Native Americans) – accompanied by patronising descriptions of non-white characteristics. Few of these racial formulations were original to Wilson; some had existed for centuries as part of theological justifications for slavery. For instance, Wilson reiterates a well-known theological interpretation of the day, used by others to justify the enslavement of Africans based on a biblical story in which Ham’s son is cursed by God to be a slave.” 

It may be unsavoury and unpopular to admit, but the sad reality is that the Africans have been enslaved in prophetic fulfilment of Genesis chapter nine [refer Chapter XI Ham and Chapter XII Canaan]. It does not justify the Arab or European actions towards the sub-Saharan Africans, but it does explain them. It would seem that any description of other ‘races’ in contrast to a ‘white’ race would be perceived as ‘patronising’ by a great number of people. This does not make it true. Recent studies support that the peoples of the world do fall into three major subsets regarding lineal ancestry. Again, deny, deny, deny all one wants, but it does not make the fact disappear. 

“Wilson devotes more ink than Allen to a discussion of race and more visibly reflects the prevalent racist attitudes of his day, but these elements are also clearly tangential to his primary argument that Anglo-Saxons are the lineal inheritors of the nation of Israel. 

While early adherents of British Israelism waxed on at great length to assert and justify their elevated in-group status as the rightful heirs of prophecy and special status in the eyes of God, their writings rarely ventured into out-group dynamics in any meaningful way – even when discussing the most obvious potential challenge to their scriptural claims of legitimacy, the Jews. 

British Israelism patently disenfranchises the Jews of their biblical covenants with God and transfers the benefits of those covenants to Anglo-Saxons. But from the perspective of Wilson, Allen and other British Israelists, this wasn’t larceny, it was simply a lateral variation on the “normal” status quo.”

This is where there is an enormous abyss of ignorance which makes the whole subject of British Israelism complex and less credible. It is only in understanding that not only are the Jews not Judah and thus not the recipients of the royal sceptre blessings, but rather they are Edom – the brother who though not cursed per se, was not blessed. There was no ‘transfer’ or separation from ‘biblical covenants’ for the Jews, for they never had them in the first place. 

“British Israelists started from the assumption that the Jews had no covenants left to lose. Most mainstream Christian theologians of the day endorsed some form of “replacement theology” – a belief that Old Testament covenants were either superseded or fulfilled by the coming of Christ.  We know the British Israelists emerged from that tradition because they devoted many pages to detailed refutations of replacement theology, arguing that the old covenants had not been superseded or fulfilled, but were still valid and subject to a legitimate claim by Anglo-Saxons.”

An important distinction needs to be made here and it may be one that Berger is not fully conversant with. The Old Covenant as applying to the Mosaic Law surrounding the Sacrificial system and Levitical priesthood had been fulfilled with the Messiah’s sinless life, death and resurrection [refer article, The Legality of the law & The Sabbath Secrecy]. 

The covenantal promises made to the patriarch Abraham for his faith and obedience did not end and have been fulfilled in the remarkable blessings afforded the British and Irish descended peoples and nations. Is that racist? If so, that means the Being who created the races is racist. This is obviously an absurd statement. How can the Creator be racist over His own creation? Think about it.

“In other words, British Israelists did not emerge to contest the legitimacy of a Jewish claim to the benefits of the covenants.The very notion was so irrelevant to their thinking that they never even dignified it with their attention. Instead, they emerged to contest the contemporaneous Christian claim that the covenants had been replaced.” 

The first statement would carry great consequence if the Jews were truly of the tribe of Judah. As they are not, it is of little consequence. The second statement would carry weight if the promised blessings destined to Abraham’s descendants through Isaac and Jacob had somehow been reneged upon or superseded by a different covenant. But they were not, for the passing away of the Old Covenant did not have any bearing on the Abrahamic covenant. The Eternal promised to bless Abraham unconditionally [Genesis 17:1-19]. The only change if one wished to be precise about technicalities was the ceasing of circumcision as the necessary outward sign of the covenant by the time of Christ. Yet even so, this was in relation to Abraham’s obedience to the Law and a prefigurement of the Sinai Covenant and the Ten Commandments given to Moses and the congregation of Israel; whereby circumcision remained and the sign of the Sabbath was added.

“Thus, most early British Israelists did not frame Jews as an enemy out-group, treating them instead as an alienated segment of the Israelite in-group. For Wilson, Jews and Europeans alike are descendants of Shem and thus genetically superior to the other two major races. Wilson often uses Caucasian and Semitic interchangeably, although he specifies that Anglo-Saxons are the best exemplars of the race and further claims that the Jewish line has been polluted by race-mixing – a point that would be recalled by later writers and eventually take on much greater importance. 

This miscegenation, along with the rejection and execution of Christ, contributed to disqualifying modern Jews from participation in God’s covenants, Wilson argues, but he stipulates that the Jews can be re-assimilated into the nation of Israel by converting to Christianity. While he criticises the Jews for “unceasing hatred [of] not only Christ, the Head, but also His followers”, he is also very specific that they must not be excluded from the fulfilment of prophecy, explaining: 

Do we bring forward these historical truths to disparage the Jew? Far from it. Only to illustrate the truth regarding Israel.”

The Bible reveals that Esau not only married outside his close relative’s gene pool, but  considerably polluted his line with his choice of wives. It should then be no surprise that the Sephardim by degree and the Ashkenazim substantially, show the results of admixture for near on four millennia. The question of disqualification and re-assimilation are non-issues considering the Jews are not a lost, or separate tribe from Israel; nor are they prophesied a change of heart, or a conversion to Christianity. These are not accurate interpretations, due to the profound mis-identification of the Jewish people.

‘Allen, writing 27 years later, is far more careful to avoid disparaging Jews (or anyone else) on racial grounds, arguing that in the future, Anglo-Israel and the tribe of Judah “are again to be united, become one kingdom, and then remain so forever”. Other British Israelist authors generally followed the same template, expecting a future reunification and embracing a patronising and often freighted philo-Semitism. 

“Ephraim – the Anglo-Saxon – are reaching out the hand of love – of fraternal affection – to Judah, the Jews, inviting them to terms of fellowship, such as in the days of old when they came out of Egypt, and before the separation”, wrote E.P. Ingersoll in 1886’s Lost Israel Found in the Anglo-Saxon Race. 

“View the Jews, therefore, in any aspect you please, they at once arrest our attention, inspire our thoughts and command our admiration”, wrote William H. Poole in 1889’s Anglo‐Israel or the Saxon Race Proved to be the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel – before describing a stereotypically unpleasant Jewish “countenance” as a byproduct of their rejection of Christ. 

Despite all the qualifications and stipulations, the fraternal impulses of the British Israelists were fraught with underlying tensions, chiefly that their magnanimity toward the Jews was predicated on a firm expectation of eventual assimilation. Jews must eventually embrace Christianity in order for British Israelists’ prophetic expectations to be fulfilled. This underlying tension would grow sharper as British Israelism evolved into the mid-20th century, at the same time that a broader social strain of anti-Semitism was evolving from a religious construct into a racial one.’

There will never, ever be any kind of ‘reunification’ between ‘Anglo-Israel’ and the Edomite Jews. The unity of Judah and Israel has been in evidence and demonstrated since 1801 in the guise of the United Kingdom of Great Britain – and since 1922, including Northern Ireland. 

“British Israelites sought to enhance in-group legitimacy by making Anglo-Saxons the inheritors of biblical covenants and promises of greatness. This was accomplished in texts through a pseudo-scholarly approach, designed to woo potential recruits through deliberative arguments. 

Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright creates its constructs of identity by establishing elaborate conceptual linkages among a number of in-group concepts and knowledge assets.

Judah’s Sceptre is not a fully formed extremist interpretation of the world, in part because it emerges from a discriminatory worldview in which it is not necessary to disenfranchise Jews of what they do not possess. Furthermore, it does not critique Jewish practices or historical behaviour (or rather, it does not single Jews out for more criticism than Anglo-Saxons). Instead, its primary critique is intellectual in basis and directed at mainstream Christian theologians whose conclusions differ from Allen’s. 

Nevertheless, Allen provides seeds for the eventual development of an out-group dynamic, setting the stage for the next generation of British Israelists. These are derived from the in-group linkage that “God made covenants with the Israelites” and that “Anglo-Saxons are Israelites”. 

These two points are real in their premises. The Eternal did make covenants with the Hebrews, beginning with Abraham and lasting through to Moses some 430 years later. The body of material supporting that the Israelites have to have descendants in the modern world somewhere, is attributable, beyond question and any reasonable doubt to the Celtic-Saxon-Viking peoples of Britain and Ireland. In depth research would confirm this to any person who does not serve a religious or academic agenda. 

To then blame Allen and other writers for indirectly influencing the racist philosophies of white supremacy groups is unjustifiably harsh. People have an uncanny knack for turning anything good or true into a catalyst for evil or error.

“Allen could have marshaled the same sources to argue that Anglo-Saxons were simply included or co-equal with the Jews in the inheritance of covenants. The fact that he, and most other British Israelite authors, chose not to take this approach provided the opening for an increasingly virulent strain of anti-Semitism that would eventually subsume the original ideology’s particular and specific worldview.”

What Berger does not realise, is that even if one wanted to place the Jews and Anglo-Israel together on an equal footing, it would be historically, ethnically and genetically incorrect, a falsehood. The writers on the subject cannot be held culpable for a stance that though arrived at thorough error, still produced the correct conclusion. 

“Many of the concepts in the text are bundled (see chart…), particularly the key idea of heredity, which is a bundled collection of links between history, scripture, folklore and analysis. The crucial argument that “Anglo-Saxons are Israelites” is built on multiple bundles. Allen’s articulation of the ideology can be usefully diagrammed according to these linkages and bundled concepts. 

Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright uses these links and bundles to establish several benchmarks of in-group identity, including:  

Defining shared beliefs (religious) 

Defining shared history (scripture, heredity) 

Defining intrinsic, non-negotiable identity (heredity, Anglo-Israel nation)”

 

Linkages in the text of Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright. 

Green lines represent links defining the in-group; red lines pertain to out-groups. 

I presume because I am an advocate of the understanding that the Celtic-Saxon-Viking peoples are the descendants of the sons of Jacob from biblical, secular and genetic [Y-DNA and mtDNA Haplogroup] evidence, I do not see anything inherently wrong or evil in the above ‘bundle’ chart. Apart from the fact that the United States is not Manasseh, England is not Ephraim and the Jews are not Judah, that is. I guess one would need to be an atheist, evolutionist or a rigid orthodox Christian to remain a sceptic when confronted with as much documentation as exists on the topic.  

“For the early British Israelists, the heavy lifting is found in the work of constructing an intrinsic identity (Anglo-Israel) through “historical” proofs, derived from the bundled concepts of scripture, history and folklore. These are not treated as entirely interchangeable. Scriptural genealogies and history are seen as identical constructs; folklore is relegated to providing secondary and supporting proofs.

This bundle of concepts is the linchpin that keeps the wheels from flying off. Without the genealogical argument, British Israelism falls apart. In contrast, the future fruits of heredity are presented in relatively modest fashion – blessings due to a “great nation” and a “company of nations”. When Allen invokes prophecy, he is most often pointing to prophecies he believes have already been fulfilled, which in turn are bundled into the historical and intrinsic constructs. Expectations for the future of the identity group remain vague. The movement, in its early stages, seeks its legitimacy in the past.”

To fully understand Bible prophecy, one would need to know the identities of the peoples being discussed in biblical passages. As identities have been inherently incorrect, accurate interpretations of future prophecy have remained allusive for all bible scholars and biblical historians, including the leading proponent of British Israelism, J H Allen. 

“British Israelism, Barkun writes, was often “philo-Semitic”, but it “operated in an environment rife with anti-Semitism” and “racial theorizing”. The movement also had implicit elements of anti-Semitism in its elevation of the Anglo-Saxon line over the Judaic line, as well as reflecting general white racial attitudes of the day, which were not especially enlightened and at times tended toward the conspiratorial.”

It is a very sensitively deduced line that dissects what is considered anti-Semitic or racist. Try to explain the doctrine of British Israelism as delineated in scripture – believed by many to be inspired writings – and one is suddenly anti-Semitic. Yet in irony, those who claim anti-semitism appear unaware that the word is a misapplication of its meaning; for a ‘Semite’ is one that speaks a particular language group and is not a definition of ethnicity or race. As far as ‘white racial attitudes’, it is factual history that the age of enlightenment was begun with the Europeans. Does this mean they have higher intelligence than the rest of the world, or that they are superior? No. They had the opportunity and desire to explore, travel and migrate. Is discussing the endeavours and achievements of Europeans, racist? Surely not. 

“For some early British Israelist writers, the movement actually allayed concerns about perceived Jewish influence by offering a prophesied path toward purification and reconciliation of the tribes of Israel. The religious basis for the out-group formulation offered an important escape clause, and one that could be safely postponed until prophetic conditions were met at some unspecified point in the future. 

British Israelism began by defining Anglo-Saxon identity primarily by a shared history derived from shared beliefs (both drawn from Christian scriptures). Early British Israelists were obsessed with the history plank of the identity platform. As more planks were added to the platform, the in-group’s demand for legitimacy increased.”

A by-product of historical research is that further documentation adds weight to the initial argument and its foundation, whether ‘demanded’ or not and whether ‘legitimacy’ is required or not. 

“Early adherents sought to establish their legitimacy by claiming that Great Britain and the United States had already fulfilled relevant prophecies. Therefore, initially, the movement was less concerned with the future. But two World Wars and the establishment of a Jewish Israel rocked the complacency of a movement originally content with being a “great nation” and a “company of nations”, leading to a growing obsession with not-yet-fulfilled prophecies of an apocalyptic conflict that adherents concluded Anglo-Israel was destined to win.”

The establishment of the Jewish State of Palestine can be clearly shown as a fulfilment of biblical prophecy for Edom and not Judah [refer Chapter XXIX Esau].

“The question of “who we are” also shifted. Initial British Israelist scholarship traced the “birthright and sceptre” of Israel through a series of decisions points involving God or the Israelites. The racial implications of inheritance became more and more important for subsequent generations, leading to the description and definition of intrinsic Anglo- Saxon racial qualities, while emphasising the racial impurity of those figures excluded from the Israelite line.”

If such were the case regarding ‘racial impurity’, then the fault lay with those expounding the teaching or perhaps with those reading it and their own interpretation. The fault does not lay with the doctrine itself. If it is condemned by some, then the Eternal who made humankind and predetermined their ethnicities and national boundaries is at fault. I certainly would not be desirous of being foolish enough in denouncing the Creator with an mis-allegation such as this one.  

“Nearly 70 years of prolific British Israelist output had produced a massive body of “scholarship”… creating an illusion of rigour [‘scrupulous accuracy’]. The “proofs” laboriously devised by… authors were carefully cited and catalogued… Early and middle-period British Israelist texts are extremely deliberative in focus. They are concerned with building the case for Anglo-Saxon identity, and they approach it using the trappings of scholarship. Evidence is marshal[l]ed, arguments are advanced, and counter-arguments are entertained. British Israelist authors did not require (or even conceive of) their audience as a force to be mobilised toward action [that is, the later Christian Identity movement]; they primarily sought validation, especially from theological and scientific authorities. The nature of this goal required deliberative arguments.”

Berger uses conflicting language, in that deliberate means: ‘carefully weighed or considered, cautious consideration, careful or slow in deciding, to weigh in the mind, to think carefully or attentively, to consult or confer formally.’ It seems to this writer that the word is appropriate in light of the material that has been presented by the leading exponents of British Israelism, such as J H Allen. Berger also conflicts in the phrase trappings of scholarship. Either investigated material is scholarship, or it is not. There is no middle ground or ‘fake’ scholarship. The word scholarship means: ‘learning, knowledge acquired by study, the academic attainments of a scholar.’ And, what is a scholar? ‘A learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.’ 

It does not seem to occur to investigators like Berger, that possibly they are the ones who are not perceiving the clear truth laid before them in plain sight; or that the writers on the subject are not deluded or duplicitous. This ends my critique and necessary rebuttal to a review and evaluation that leaned not towards neutrality as hoped, but instead portrayed an unconcealed antagonistic bias. 

© Orion Gold 2022 – All rights reserved. Permission to copy, use or distribute, if acknowledgement of the original authorship is attributed to orion-gold.com