Hello WILLOWTREE,
Since jar appears to be addressing the heraldic symbology, in this post I will outline some of the other points that (so far) I think are deficient regarding this theory.
Also, I know you are otherwise involved, but there is no hurry to respond. Please, slow down and take the time to fully understand what is being stated before you respond; as backtracking to correct misapprehensions gets wearisome quickly.
One of the sites in support of your theory makes this statement:
quote:
There is very little if anything to indicate that the Scots came solely from Ulster. On the contrary, their own records state that they came from Scythia, which is the ancient name of the country to the west and north of the Caspian Sea.
In view of the origin of the Red Hand emblem in the event recorded in Genesis 38, and in the fact that a Red Hand thereby became one of the emblems of the descendants of Zara-Judah, we conclude that the people who brought the Red Hand to Ulster so long ago and the Scots who later brought it to Scotland, though coming at different times, had a common origin, at least in part, in the Zara branch of the Tribe of Judah.
So here we have it stated that there were two separated branches of Zaraite descent using the Red Hand emblem. One (from your statements) coming from Egypt and arriving in Ulster earlier, and another coming from Scythia, and arriving in Scotland, later. Yet, we also know from Numbers 26:20 that there was, then, a third branch of Zaraite descent with the exodus group on the plains of Moab.
Now, we need to take a close look at what this theory is based on:
1.You say, "The Zaraites left Egypt before the bondage."
Since I have seen no record of this event ever happening, this assertion appears to be based strictly on the following two (somewhat tenuous) conjectures:
a. The Red Hand emblem.
The conjecture here is that the Red Hand (gules >red; dexter > hand) emblem is derived from the biblical account of Zerah's birth. But as we see quoted from above, since "
there is little if anything to indicate that the Scots came solely from Ulster", and since they claim to have come from Scythia, we must now posit a second branch of Zaraites coming from Scythia and also employing this Red Hand emblem. However, as mentioned, Numbers 26:20 says that "of Judah . . of Zerah, the family of the Zaraites" were among the exodus group. We should then, also see this Red Hand emblem associated with this third group of Zaraites in Judea.
b. You say, "Calcol, a Zarahite (1Chron.2:6) landed in Spain. He founded ZARAgossa."
First, it is more properly Zaragota. Further, I have seen no record for the existence or use of this name before c. 15 B.C. when, at its founding as a Roman colony, it received the name of "Cesarauguta" in honor of the Emperor Caesar Augustus. In the year 714, Cesarauguta was conquered by the Moors and the name morphed to "Saragusta", then finally to the modern Zaragota.
So, let's recap:
So far it seems that your hypothesis is based on one assertion supported only by two somewhat tenuous conjectures.
1. I have seen no record of a Zerah branch leaving Egypt before the bondage.
2. Since Numbers 26:20 specifically lists the family of Zaraites as being among the exodus group, it must be
assumed that the bible
really means "only a part of the Zaraites".
Also, since it must be postulated that there were two other Zaraite groups (one out of Egypt and one from Scythia) both employing the Red Hand emblem, why have I not seen you present evidence connecting this heraldic symbology with the third Zaraite branch that came into Judea with the exodus group?
3. I have seen no record of the name "Zaragossa" (Zaragota) in any record before the founding of Cesarauguta c. 15 B.C. and, as has been mentioned, simply matching similar syllables can lead to any number of pseudo-connections.
Now I want to touch on where you're going with this. You have made these statements:
quote:
(Omri) becomes Gimmiria and Greek Kimmerioi to Cimmerian.
Israelites, called Gimira by Assyria, and Kimmeroii (Cimmerians) by Greeks, established a reign of terror in Asia Minor, from 710-590 B.C., and finally migrated to Europe; to a place they called Arsareth. (2 Esdras 13:40-44 in the Apocrypha) This group was a part of the Israelites that left Egypt before Israel came under bondage.
It is these descendants of Zara who are the Cimmerians/Gimira.
I can prove descendants of Zara were already in Britain by 1100 BC.
Let's look at these statements in proximity to each other:
The "house of Omri" (Humri, Hu-um-ri-i, etc.) is the Assyrian name for the Northern Kingdom. Thus, you say that, through word morphology (Omri > (K)Humri > Gimirri > Cimmerian), the dispersed 10 tribes become known as the Cimmerians.
Now, what you didn't seem to understand from my previous post is that we
both already know that the Northern kingdom could not have been attacking Urartu in c. 720 B.C.; that is precisely
why the "
(earlier) group out of Egypt" had to be postulated.
Then next, you identify this "earlier group out of Egypt" as the Zaraites and say that it was these Zaraites who were actually the Cimmerians attacking Urartu in 720 B.C.
But why would a group of Zaraites, of the house of Judah, attacking Urartu from the north, be called by a name derived from "the house of Omri", i.e. from your morphology, "Cimmerians"? Especially since the "house of Omri" (the Cimmerians) had just been marched off across the Euphrates.
And finally, you make these statements:
quote:
The Jews were never given or promised to be "as the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea". This massive population group was promised to Ephraim and Manasseh who were part of the Northern kingdom - the House of Israel.
Jews are a tiny worldwide minority.
The word is used to describe persons that make up and populate the Southern kingdom of Judah which consisted of two tribes from Israel - Judah and Benjamin. Hence, Judah/Jews.
The Celtic-Anglo-Saxon nations and the U.S.A. are the descendants of the dispersed 10 tribes. This is why ALL the promises given to Abraham are fulfilled in the British Empire/U.S.A.
. . . Jesus telling His disciples to take the gospel FIRST to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.
The gospel went first to these forsaken/not having mercy/dispersed 10 tribes.
As you seem to understand, the birthrights were not given, at some late date, to the Southern and/or Northern kingdoms. They were assigned to the houses of the sons of Jacob. Using your interpretation: one to the house of Joseph (Ephraim & Manasseh) and another to the house of Judah (Zerah & Pharez).
Thus, in your own words, "This massive population group was promised to Ephraim and Manasseh". Yet you are now talking about the Zaraites, of the house of Judah, dispersing all over Europe and Asia and propagating into huge populations. What does this have to do with the deported tribes of Israel, your "lost sheep"?
In summary then, if this theory is expected to be taken as anything more than mere conjecture:
1. You need to produce some record of, or credible support for, the assertion that a group of Zaraites left Egypt before the bondage. (And Diodorus Siculus' account of Danaos and his followers sailing to Greece doesn't work here.)
2. Since Numbers 26:20 clearly states that the family of Zerah (of Judah) left Egypt with the exodus group, you need to provide some indication that this group of Zaraites also employed the Red Hand emblem. Or at least provide some credible reason why they did not while the other two postulated groups of Zaraites allegedly did.
3. You need to provide some record showing the use of some credible form of the name of "Zaragossa" (Zaragosta, Zaragota) from before c. 15 B.C. when, at its founding as a Roman colony, it received the name of "Cesarauguta" in honor of the Emperor Caesar Augustus.
4. You need to provide some reason for why a group of Zaraites, of the house of Judah, attacking from the north, would be referred to by a term that you say is derived from "the house of Omri". Again, especially at a time when the "house of Omri" was being marched across the Euphrates.
5. And finally, you should clarify how the Zaraite's propagating all over the continent has anything to do with the promise that Ephraim and Manasseh would be "as the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea".
Take your time, read carefully, and I will await your response.
Amldohi
This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-11-2004 03:35 PM
™ Version 4.2
