By Steven M. Collins
This column has been stimulated by an extraordinary, even historic event. On
September 11, 2001, the United States was heavily attacked by radical
Islamic terrorists. The terrorists turned four hijacked airliners into
flying Fuel Air Explosive bombs as they utterly destroyed the World Trade
Center in New York and badly damaged the Pentagon in Washington DC. The
devastation in Manhattan looks like London, Coventry, Berlin or Dresden
after they were bombed in World War II! According to one article I read this
week, the attack destroyed or damaged 20% of all the office space in New
York City and it killed or wounded thousands of Americans! It was the
costliest attack upon American soil since our nation was founded.
It now seems apparent the fourth airliner was destined to ram into the
Capitol or White House, but heroic efforts by passengers on the doomed
flight prevented the terrorists from hitting their target with the fourth
aircraft. These passengers were told by spouses and friends via cell-phones
about the other hijacked airliners rammed into the World Trade Center, so
the passengers decided to sacrifice themselves to save their fellow
citizens.
President Bush has rallied our nation which has not been this unified since
World War II. He gave a speech to a joint session of Congress setting forth
America's determination to wage war on terrorism and those nations, which
harbor terrorists. Sitting in the Congressional gallery was a single foreign
head-of-state. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, was present
as a symbol of the unequivocal support of the British people for America. As
President Bush acknowledged Mr. Blair's presence, he received an ovation
from the assembled leadership of the American government (and American
citizens watching the speech all over the nation).
Other foreign leaders could have come as well to be a part of the event, but
they chose not to do so. Other nations will help America's war on terrorism,
of course, but no nation is as supportive as Great Britain. As this column
is being written, the news media have shown footage of a British fleet
already passing through the Suez Canal on its way to join forces with the
gathering US fleet in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. The British fleet
apparently consists of one jump-jet aircraft carrier, an attack submarine
and eleven other warships. While other nations will join the coalition for
quid-pro-quos or because of shared vital interests, the British support of
America goes far deeper.
This mutual support between the British and Americans has a fundamental
cause which goes much deeper than sharing a common language or culture. Both
Yair Davidy (www.Britam.org) and I have identified the English and
American peoples as primarily the descendants of the Israelite tribes of
Ephraim and Manasseh, respectively. The British-American alliance is based
on the fact that they are truly "brother" nations who
descended from the two sons of Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh. By divine
favor, these nations have received the lion's share of the many birthright
blessings of the Covenant God made with Abraham long ago. The bond between
America and Britain is based on a blood relationship.
We must also not forget that Canada, Australia and New Zealand share the
Ephraimite roots of the British. When the airliners were being hijacked and
it became necessary to ground all airliners, Canadian airports freely hosted
many redirected American airliners. Australia had a contingent of soldiers
training in the USA, and the Australian government announced they could be
deployed to the Middle East along with the American troops. The USA worked
just as closely with Canada, Australia and New Zealand as it did with the
British in a global alliance in World War II to liberate Europe and the rest
of world from Axis domination.
Of course, America has also supported the British in their times of greatest
need. The Americans rallied to the help of Great Britain in both World Wars
I and II, turning the tide twice against the Axis powers. This column will
demonstrate that this relationship has existed throughout history. This
column will mention other instances where the tribe of Manasseh rallied to
join the Ephraimites in wars to defeat a common enemy.
After the tribes of Israel were expelled from their ancient homelands in
Eretz Israel, they grew mighty and possessed huge populations (Josephus
documents this promise in Hosea 1:6-10 and it had been fulfilled by the 1st
century AD). As documented in my book, the relocated tribes of Israel
included the Scythians (known also as "Sacae," named after Isaac their
forefather), and the Parthians.
The tribe of Manasseh came to be one of the dominant tribes of the
Scythians, and the Greeks called them the Massagetae. These Massagetae were
located in the Caspian Sea region, and they were, I believe, the descendants
of the half-tribe of Manasseh taken captive by the Assyrians in
approximately 741 BC when Gilead's tribes were taken by the Assyrians. When
the Assyrian Empire fell, those Israelites who were captives were free to
migrate elsewhere and they migrated toward the Caspian Sea. These related
tribes were known as the Eastern Scythians/Sacae and they were led by the
Massagetae. One would expect the birthright tribe of Manasseh to be one of
their leading tribes.
These Massagetae were attacked by Cyrus the Great and the Persian Empire in
the 6th century BC in an apparent attempt to bring them under a new Persian
captivity. Israelites are freedom-loving people and they fought fiercely to
prevent any new captivity. Herodotus records that virtually the entire
Persian Army died along with King Cyrus himself as the Massagetae gained a
total victory.
It is my view that the other half of the tribe of Manasseh migrated to the
Black Sea region along with several other tribes just before the final
Assyrian invasion, which conquered the city of Samaria. This mass of
migrating Israelites established Sacae Scythian kingdoms in the Black Sea
region as well as the Kingdom of Iberia (named after Eber, the forefather of
the Hebrews) in the Caucasus Mountains.
The Parthian Empire, which rivaled the Roman Empire for centuries, was
founded primarily by the tribe of Ephraim. Listed below is an excerpt from
one of my new books. The type-face is different and the endnotes dropped out
as I "cut and pasted" this text, so the source documents are noted but the
page numbers do not appear.
**************************
"...Numbers 26:35-36 records that three clans of the Israelite tribe of
Ephraim were named the Bachrites, the Eranites, and the
Tahanites. The Seleucid province of Bactria, which revolted along
with Parthia, bore the name of one of the clans of Ephraim in a Hellenized
form. An Israelite origin for Bactria is supported by an account from
Richard Frye's book, The Heritage of Persia, which states that the
Bactrian language "...was related to Saka, or at least underwent strong
influences from Saka tongues." The Persian word "Saka" referred to the Sacae
Scythians. The record that the Bactrians welcomed a Scythian ruler who freed
them from a Greek satrap, and the fact that the Bactrians shared a
linguistic heritage with the Parthians argues that the Bactrians were also
Sacae (or Saka) who had descended from the ten tribes of Israel.
Henry Rawlinson, in his book Bactria, states: "there seems to be very
little doubt that the population of Bactria was largely Scythian"...[and
cites Justin, a classical author, who wrote] "The Bactrian Empire was
founded by the Scythians."
Numbers 26:36 also notes that another clan of the tribe of Ephraim descended
from Eran and was known as the "Eranites." A group of people
known as the Eranians were present in the region of ancient Persia
and Parthia. Assyria had transplanted the defenders of Samaria (an
Ephraimite city) into "the cities of the Medes." Therefore, we should expect
to see Ephraimite names in the Medo-Persian region. The "Eranians"
manifested the exact Hebrew name of one of the clans of Ephraim in
the area of Medo-Persia. This name has survived into modern times as the
English name for modern Persia is Iran. The terms "Iran" and "Eran"
are interchangeable. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1943 Edition), in
its Index section, simply states "Eran: see Iran." The capital of Iran, Teheran,
also preserves the name of this Ephraimite clan. This book does not assert
or imply that modern Iranians are Israelites as it is clear from history
that modern Iranians are principally Medo-Persian in racial origins.
However, the name "Iran" is derived from the name of a clan of Ephraim,
which was placed in Medo-Persian territory by the Assyrians and lived there
for many centuries.
Most historical accounts assume that the name "Eran" originated from the
term "Aryan." However, historical accounts generally have not considered an
Israelite alternative for the origin of the Eranians. Indeed, historical
accounts seem unwilling to even look for the large masses of Israelites who
were relocated into Asia. The case for an Israelite origin for the Eranians
is very strong. Not only are the Eranians found in the correct geographical
location where Israelite tribes and clans were placed (Medo-Persia), but
there were many other ancient names in that region with an Israelite
origin!"
****************************
My new book goes on to explain the Ephraimite clan of "Tahan" was known as "Dahan"
by the Greco-Romans who wrote about the Parthians. The Ephraimite dominance
of the Parthian Empire is clear. Josephus wrote that the ten tribes were "in
Asia" and "beyond [the] Euphrates" in his lifetime. The Euphrates River was
the border between the Roman and Parthian Empires then, so Josephus was
designating that the ten tribes "were in Parthia." Since Ephraim was the
chief birthright tribe of the ten tribes of Israel, it is no surprise to
find the Ephraimite clans in a leadership role in Parthia.
Indeed, the Greeks often wrote a "p" where we usually find a "b." For
example, the Greeks referred to the "Britannic Isles" as the "Pretannic
Isles." If we read the "P" in Parthia as a "B," we see the word "Barthia" or
"B'rithia" appear as the real name of the Parthian Empire. Herein we easily
see the Hebrew word for covenant, "Berith" or "B'rit" (dare we say "Brits?")
as forming the basis for the word "Parthia." Ephraim was the chief tribe to
inherit the birthright promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. Therefore, the
presence of the Hebrew word for "Covenant" is an appropriate name for an
empire dominated by Ephraimites.
Many historians have commented that the Scythians and Parthians were related
tribes to each other. The Parthian Empire was in direct contact and rivalry
with such other empires as the Seleucid Greek Empire and, later, the Roman
Empire. The Scythians were more "isolationist" and generally avoided
conflict with other nations and empires to their south. The one great
exception is when the Black Sea Scythians invaded and destroyed the Assyrian
Empire in the late 7th century BC. When the Parthians were in danger of
being defeated by either the Seleucid or Roman Empires, the Sacae of Scythia
would often send armies to fight on the side of the Parthians to ensure the
Seleucids and Romans were defeated. George Rawlinson's book, The Sixth
Great Oriental Monarchy, particularly mentions many of these instances.
Given that the Scythians were dominated by Manasseh and the Parthians by
Ephraim, we can see remarkable parallels in these ancient events to those of
the 20th century. Even as Manasseh came to the rescue of Ephraim when the
Scythians assisted the Parthians in their ancient wars, the same thing
happened as the Americans came to the rescue of the British Empire in two
World Wars. In the modern world, we have recently seen the Americans and the
British team up enthusiastically in the Persian Gulf War and now the new War
on Terrorism. They join forces as the brothers they are whenever danger or
war comes upon them. As we can see from ancient history, theirs is a natural
alliance, which has occurred over and over again in history.
As I conclude this column, we again see the bonds between Ephraim and
Manasseh uniting these nations when one of the brother nations is attacked.
Other nations of modern Israelite will join the latest alliance yet and so
will other non-Israelite nations. However, considerable wheeling and dealing
and negotiating will occur before these other nations decide on their
contributions to the war effort. However, Tony Blair and the British have
once again implemented the blood-brother alliance of Ephraim and Manasseh.
While other nations are still deliberating on what to do, the British simply
say: "Here we are, what can we do to help?"
There is evidence the modern alliance of Ephraim and Manasseh goes deeper
than anyone realizes or acknowledges. The nations of the European Union
allege that there exists a secret, worldwide intelligence-gathering
operation known as "Echelon." In an article in my home-town newspaper,
The Sioux Falls Argus-Leader (a Gannett Newspaper) on September 6th,
2001, it was noted the European Union had voted 367-159 "to adopt 44
recommendations on how to counter Echelon." The article, with a Brussels,
Belgium dateline, added that "Echelon is run by the United States in
cooperation with Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand."
As those who have read Yair Davidy's book(s), or mine know (Can be ordered
from www.Britam.org, or www.ChristianRealityVideos.com), the
nations comprising the "Echelon" alliance are the modern nations of the
tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Echelon appears to be a shadowy, but very
real alliance of the entire House of Joseph in the modern world. Is not it
interesting that without even knowing their common Israelite origins, these
nations have gravitated together into a very close alliance?
As I close this column, I think again of the singular presence of British
Prime Minister Tony Blair in the Congressional Gallery as President George
Bush addressed the entire government of the United States. His presence
spoke volumes. He did not have to be there, but he came anyway in our time
of national trouble and challenge. He came because that is what brothers do
in a time of crisis.
Speaking from the standpoint of an American, I close this column with a
heartfelt appreciation of our brother nation when I say: "God bless the
British!"
Steven Collins
Note: