"Brit-Am Now"-619
1. Good Wishes for Brit-Am
2. Tim Murray: Encouragement
3. Jack Flaws: Disappointed in Article on Scots Heritage
4. Declaration of Arbroath 1320: The Text
5. Priorities of Conviction Concerning the Brit-Am Ephraimite message.
6. This Week's Torah Portion
7. Brit-Am not fair? Protest registered
8. Declaration of Arbroath 1320: Sources and Comment
9. Does the Father or mother determine what tribe you belong to?

1. Good Wishes for Brit-Am
(a) Keep up the good work
RT, West Australia

(b) Dear Yair

Take no heed of the controversy in the Cleveland Jewish News or anywhere
else regarding the Epphratic roots of Great Britain and the USA etc. Brit-Am
I believe does the work that God intends so keep at it and you will find
your reward. God is not mocked by Christian or Jew nor is his will deflected
one jot by human reasoning or ambition.
May God bless you

2. Tim Murray: Encouragement
From: Timothy F Murray <tfmurray@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Brit-Am, The Jewish Aspect, and Eddie Chumney.

Thanks for this focused treatment of the current controversy, Yair.  You
do well to keep such discussions rare, but once in a while it's helpful
to share your views.  As a Christian, I find them, on the whole, sensible
and pragmatically useful.  I mean that Brit-Am, operating according to
its own internal guidelines, is (I believe) doing the work of God in
pointing both Jews and "Joes" to the fulfillment of Scripture.

The final outcome is determined by the prophets.  All we (Jews and
Christians together) can do to arrive at that outcome, while still under
the protection and favor of God, seems to me to be worth pursuing.  So
don't quit, and may you succeed in keeping this teaching alive.  Keep
refusing to be distracted or diverted, and you will yet be exhonorated.

I pray for you and your work regularly.
Tim Murray

3. Jack Flaws: Disappointed in Article on Scots Heritage
From: Jack Flaws <stag@asis.com>
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-618

Yair.  I was reading the excerpts about Scotland and the US with anticipation, but was disappointed.  I expected to see the statement in the very first paragraph of the statement to be the main confirmation that the Scots were Israelites to be included.  Perhaps it is in another part of the book, but it seemed very appropriate to be included in this forum.  It was not.

I have known the Scotish Delcaration of Independence for many years.  It is one small piece in the whole Lost Tribes Study.
Quoting from E. Raymond Capt's booklet:

"....date their beginnings as a nation one thousand two hundred years after the outgoing of the "people of Israel."  Thus, they claim descent from the Israelites in Egypt."

I realize that the author might not even hold to the Lost Tribes teaching, and was not interested in that side of the issue.  But I was still disappointed.

4. Declaration of Arbroath 1320: The Text
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. They journeyed from Greater Scythia 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 tribes, but nowhere could they be
subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred
years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in
the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out,
the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed
by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of
that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians
of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever
since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen
kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner." -
Declaration of Arbroath 1320

se also entry #8 below.

5. Priorities of Conviction Concerning the Brit-Am Ephraimite message.
I meet up with "Ephraimites" fairly frequently and also correspond with them.
There is a phenomenon of assumption, i.e. of assuming that the proofs
concerning Ephraim are self-evident and that the others (including Judah) are just being
contrary in not relating to them, or that since the proofs are publicly available and obvious there is
no need to propagandize anot them.
You should realize that the "others" are just like you when encountering something
new, unusual, and seemingly eccentric.
Not everyone wants to listen.
Those who do listen may remain unbelievers, or in doubt, or prepared
to consider the possibility or be convinced.
Even the few who prepared
to consider the possibility or are convinced do not owe you anything, at least not as
far as they are concerned.
From their point of view they are doing you a favor just by listening to you on this subject
and in a sense that is correct.
They are doing you a favor from a psychological point of view since they are not aware of the potential importance of this message to themselves.
This is the way things are.
This is what Divine Providence provided.
This is what we are dealing with.
Those who assume otherwise are taking a counter-productive attitude.

For a discussion on related matters see:
The Two House Doctrine and Ephraimites

6. This Week's Torah Portion
"Chayaii Sarah"
Genesis chs. 23 to 25
The Life of Sarah

7. Brit-Am not fair? Protest registered
In "Brit-Am Now"-617 we posted notes by a Roman Catholic,
A Karaite Jew, a Noachide, and a Revisionist Christian.
Our "Ecumenical" approach is apparently not appreciated and protests were made
against remarks that had theological implications:

From "Jackie":


"...To the Law and to the testimony:
If they speak not according to this Word, it is because
there is no light in them"

"A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight." Proverbs 11:1

"A just weight and balance are the LORD'S: all the weights of the bag are his work." Proverbs 16:11

"Let me be weighed in an even balance, that GOD may know mine integrity." Job 31:6
... I am offended that you, Mr. Yair, would
even print in your column.....How about you allowing me to print hundreds of Scriptures taken from the
Tenach.....?  Of course not!

With all due respect, you're the General of this Forum, and most Jews will not even consider the Scriptures I would like to print here!....

Articles like this angers me to holy wrath.
Many on your Forum do believe like I, but somehow refrain from rebuking such blasphemies.
They're stricken with the chicken flu!
....Oh, you may say "I cannot publish everybody's letters". ..

I pray you will not tolerate such indignant theories if the writer does not support his
words with Scriptures.
Thank you.

Brit-Am Comment: Point Taken. We slipped up again. We cannot allow any
religious comments not directly related to the Brit-Am Mandate.
On the whole we do do OK but there is always room for improvement and God will
we shall improve.

8. Declaration of Arbroath 1320: Sources and Comment
URL shows original Latin as well as an English translation.
Latin text Refers to Danes as "Dacos" i.e. Dacians relfecting a common tradition
that the Danes were descended from the Dacians as  discussed in our work
"The Tribes".
The expression:

<<Thence they came, twelve hundred
years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in
the west where they still live today. >>

This sentence has been taken to reflect the possibility that they considered themselves
descendants of the Israelites spoken of, or that they had crossed the Red Sea
with the Israelites and included Israelites amongst them an idea also found in Irish Mythology.
That this was in the minds of they who formulated the declaration is a possibility however it is not absolutely
clear. What is important is that the declaration reflects the principle of Responsible Representation
which is a meaning of the name 'Manasseh" as Brit-Am explains.

BBC Notes (Important from a Brit-Am point of view)
The Declaration of Arbroath, 1320

Extracts Only:

'It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'
Extract from the Declaration of Arbroath, 1320.

The Declaration of Arbroath is without doubt the most famous document in Scottish history. Like the American Declaration of Independence, which is partially based on it, it is seen by many as the founding document of the Scottish nation. It was drafted on the 6th April 1320 - a day the United States of America has declared to be Tartan Day.

The Declaration is a Latin letter which was sent to Pope John XXII in April/May 1320.

It could be viewed as a cunning diplomatic ploy by the Scottish barons to explain and justify why they were still fighting their neighbours when all Christian princes were supposed to be united in crusade against the Muslims. All this, just at the point when they were about to retake Berwick: Scotland's most prosperous medieval town. As an explanation, it failed to convince the pope to lift his sentence of excommunication on Scotland.

Others analyse what the Declaration of Arbroath actually says. The Scots clergy had produced not only one of the most eloquent expressions of nationhood, but the first expression of the idea of a contractual monarchy. Here is the critical passage in question:

The point is that the nobles and clergy are not basing their argument to the pope on the traditional notion of the Divine Rights of Kings. Bruce is King first and foremost because the nation chose him, not God, and the nation would just as easily choose another if they were betrayed by the King.

In spite of all possible motivations for its creation, the Declaration of Arbroath, under the extraordinary circumstances of the Wars of Independence, was a prototype of contractual kingship in Europe.

The Declaration of Arbroath was a declaration of Scottish independence, and set out to confirm Scotland's status as an independent, sovereign state and its use of military action when unjustly attacked. It is in the form of a letter submitted to Pope John XXII, dated 6 April 1320. Sealed by fifty-one magnates and nobles, the letter is the sole survivor of three created at the time. The others were a letter from the King of Scots and a letter from the clergy which all presumably made similar points.

The Declaration made a number of much-debated rhetorical points: that Scotland had always been independent, indeed for longer than England, that Edward I of England had unjustly attacked Scotland and perpetrated atrocities, that Robert I of Scotland had delivered the Scottish nation from this peril, and, most controversially, that the independence of Scotland was the prerogative of the Scots people, rather than the King of Scots. In fact it stated that the nobility would choose someone else to be king if the current one did anything to threaten Scotland's independence.

9. Does the Father or mother determine what tribe you belong to?
From: "Pat"
Dear Yair Davidiy,

I have a question relating to the identity of the lost tribes. If Judaism says that only the female side decides whether or not a person is a Jew, then how will this affect the identity of the tribes who will be identified by the Moshiah?

If only the male carries the linage and/or DNA marker how will it be determine whether or not the females are Israelites? As for the men there would really be no way of determining if their mothers were of the tribes since they don't know themselves, so this would eliminate the men even if they have the linage DNA marker. So if it is determined who is or who isn't an Israelite via the same determination of who is or who isn't a Jew, then I fail to see how it could be determined at all.

Could you help me get a better understanding of this?

Thank you.

Pat Shalom,
Whether or not a person is a Jew is determined by the mother but this rule only applies
to the religious obligations that are binding on the body know as "Judah".
#4. Born of a Jewish Mother
For questions on Judah in  general see:
Tribal affiliation is different and is determined by the father.
In the Last Days it will be determined what Tribe each Israelite belongs to according
to the male ancestry. At that time there will be no difference between Judah and Joseph (Ezekiel 37:17)
so it will not matter then whether or not one has a Jewish mother but whether one is an Israelite.
Even if someone is not an Israelite but has identified with an Israelite entity then that person will be considered as part of that group (Ezekiel 47:22) .