Scripture and Scholars say...

1 Ki. 14:15, God “shall scatter” Israel “beyond the river,” not all in one place.

2 Ki. 10:32, “In those days the Lord began to cut off parts of Israel...” –before their final complete exile.

2 Ki. 17:6, The Assyrian king “captured Samaria and exiled Israel”

Deut. 29:28, “cast them into another land, as it is this day”

Isa. 5:26 “the end of the earth”

Isa. 11:11-12, “the four corners of the earth”

Isa. 27:13 (Vulgate), “those lost from the land of Assyria”

Isa. 49:9, “say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves.” An address to the lost ten tribes according to Jewish midrash “Pesikta Rabbati 31:10”

Isa. 49:21, (Ten Tribes:) “where had they been?”

Jer. 15:4, “I will cause them to be removed into all kingdoms of the earth”

Hos. 2:14, “I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness,” not a return to Canaan.

Hos. 8:8, “Israel is swallowed up now among the nations”

Hos. 9:17, “wanderers among the nations”

Ezra 1:15, ONLY “Judah and Benjamin” returned; remaining ten tribes did not return

“Israel and Judah... developed more or less independent of the other, Israel in the north and Judah in the south; and only gradually did circumstances bring them together, and then came the inevitable clash of interests, religious as well as political.” –"Hebrew Origins," Theophile James Meek, 1936, p.76

“Israel as a kingdom was never restored from Assyria, as Judah was from Babylon after 70 years.” –Jamieson, Faucett, Brown Commentary, p.650

“There never was a real return from the exile, although some individuals doubtless returned...the captivity of Israel did not actually terminate at 538 [B.C.], nor, in fact, ever.” –Geo. Ricker Berry, Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, “Was Ezekiel in the Exile?” pp.89, 92 (Journal of Biblical Literature 49 (1930)

“Many of the towns in southern Judah and Simeon were not reoccupied after the exile. This process was quite as disastrous as it is portrayed in the Old Testament...” –Thos. Davis, “Shifting Sands,” Oxford Univ. Press, 2004

“That the Redeemer comes ‘from Zion’ [Isa. 59:20] for Israel implies that Israel is in exile...” –G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, “Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” Baker Academic, 2007, p.674

“The exile, into all lands, among all nations, was as irrevocably decreed as was the destruction of the city.” –Charles C. Torrey, Yale University, Journal of Biblical Literature 56 (1937), p.206

“...the returnees came only from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin —the exiles in Babylon. The ten tribes did not return...the loss of the [ten] tribes marked the greatest demographic defeat inscribed in Jewish memory since Biblical times.” –Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, “The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History,” Oxford Univ. Press, 2009, pp.17, 117

“Evidently it was a token return...” –Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University, “A Reconstruction Of The Judean Restoration,” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975), p.15

“The tree of Israel, grown from one root with various branches, was cut into pieces.” –John Calvin, cited in Boer, “John Calvin,” pp. 190-191

“The ten [tribes] which had previously been carried away being scattered among the Parthians, Medes, Indians, and Ethiopians never returned to their native country, and are to this day held under the sway of barbarous nations.” –Sulpitius Severus (circa. 360-420 A.D.), Severus, Sacred History, bk ii, ch. Ii, in Schaff, et al., transl. Sulpitius Severus

“Jewish people often thought that ten of the twelve tribes were lost and would be restored only in the end time.” –Craig Keener, “A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,” Eerdmans, 1999, p.315

The ten tribes’ not returning opened “a huge wound that does not heal.” –Talmudic Haga, Sefer Ha-Berit Ha-Hadash

"The prophecy of a restored and reunited Israel and Judah...was never actually to be fulfilled... Intransigence on the part of both...produced separate and irreconcilable societies that were never able to reunite." -Bruce Vawter, "Amos, Hosea, Micah, With An Introduction To Classical Prophecy," p.81






Language Proofs Of Descent From Ancient Israel


A Question Of Origin

The language connection

The following study presents exciting new research identifying the descendants of the ancient lost house of Israel. It has tremendous bearing on Bible prophecy, the fulfillment of the covenants, and the duties and obligations of God's chosen people in the world today.


What happened to the Biblical house of Israel, the people of God who were carried away into Assyrian captivity eight centuries before Christ and never heard from again? This age-old mystery can finally be solved through the knowledge which archaeology provides concerning ancient languages. The evidence following supports the theory that the ancient ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel, after their conquest by Assyria in the late 8th century, B.C., became the Scythian-Cimmerian-Celtic peoples who colonized Europe in the early Christian centuries. This view, which has long been known as the "Anglo-Israel theory," has been analyzed in an interesting article by author and historian Geoffrey Ashe. (1)

Ashe states that Anglo-Israel (sometimes called British-Israel) believers "do not claim that the British people are the lost tribes because of the legends and alleged linguistic coincidences which are cited in support of that view. Their starting-point is the Bible, read in a fundamentalist spirit." As we will see, the linguistic proofs presented are not alleged at all, but based upon well-attested testimony of scholars in the field.

The author continues, "The prophets foretell various things about Israel which have not been fulfilled in the Jews: that God's people will be powerful, that they will be 'a nation and a company of nations,' and so forth. Also, a few passages (notably Ezekiel 36:15-25) certainly seem to keep up the distinction between Israel and Judah after the exile of both, and to foreshadow a final return and reunion... The British-Israelite, or any other theorist who thinks on these lines, feels no obligation to produce scholarly proofs that the lost tribes exist. He already knows that they do because, on biblical grounds, they must. Their reality is an axiom, not a conclusion. His non-Biblical arguments are offered mainly as indications confirming the belief he already holds." These are key points: The lost tribes of Israel must continue to be in existence as a separate people somewhere, even though they have not yet been identified; there will be a final reunion with Judah at the end of the age. Further, the Jewish people have not fulfilled all of the prophecies given to Israel, so we must look elsewhere to find these prophecies fulfilled. But in which people? Having answered this from Bible prophecy in a separate tract, we are now addressing it through linguistics, the study of languages.

Having said this, however, Mr. Ashe closes with a caveat: "But while a case could be made out for the Empire being Israel in some symbolic sense, the case for literal ethnic links with the lost tribes could not be sustained. It was altogether too complicated... [it] reduces the lost tribes to a theme of speculation only." This statement is best answered by analogy. If a robbery or murder occurred, would we accept a police explanation that, 'there is a solution here, but we won't try to solve it because it is altogether too complicated'? Of course not! Where lives are at stake, a solution is necessary. In a Spiritual sense, lives are indeed at stake, who can be transformed by a knowledge that the Bible is true and the prophecies fulfilled. A mystery is a subject for "speculation" only until the solution is found, and we believe that the identity of the lost tribes of Israel is now proven, as we shall show.

Since Mr. Ashe believes that a solution is "altogether too complicated," we will simplify our answer to two basic principles of linguistics, the science of languages.


CAN ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF LANGUAGE BE USED to identify the ancient mysterious tribes who appear prominently in the Bible and ancient history? Names of tribal units change when carried over into other languages, making it a challenge to connect them without definite guidelines to determining language affinities. There are two well-established principles in particular that enter into this discussion regarding ancient languages, both European and Middle-Eastern. One concerns consonants, and the other concerns vowels. They are:

· "Guttural" consonants "Kh", hard "G", and hard "C" are interchangeable.
· Vowels are very frequently interchanged, added, or substituted.


We will examine what recognized language scholars have written concerning these principles, and then make a practical application of them. First, concerning consonants, the learned seventeenth-century linguistic scholar, Dr. O'Brien, compiler of the first Irish-Keltic language dictionary, had this to say: "It hath been observed in the remarks on the letter C, that it is naturally commutable with G, both letters being of the same organ and nearly of the same power; and hence, in our old parchments, they are written indifferently for each other.... The same indifference, or interchangeable use of letters G and C in the Latin tongue, and the latter being generally substituted in the place of the former, appears from ancient Roman inscriptions, and most particularly from that of the Columna Rostrata, erected in honour of Duillins, the Consul, whereupon were engraved the words macistratos, leciones, pucnando, Carthaciniensis, for magistratos, legiones, pugnando, Carthaginiensis, etc... Which gave occasion to Diomedes to call G a new consonant."(2)

This interchangeability of hard consonants was also true in ancient Mesopotamia. In the Assyrian Cuneiform Alphabet, the same character stands for both the hard "G" and "Kh," (as can be seen in the encyclopedia chart reproduced in the written form of this tract).(3) A moments' reflection will indicate to you that the same part of the mouth and throat is used to sound out all three hard consonants: Kh, hard G, and hard C, and that a change of spelling is easily and logically made from one to another, because virtually no change in pronunciation is involved. This is verified by modern Hebrew language and literature scholar, Dr. Isaac Elchanan Mozeson, who teaches language studies at Yeshiva University in Jerusalem. He states, "The Hebrew G, the Gimel, is often a K in Greek and other Western tongues. [The Hebrew letter G] resembles a backwards K."(4) As an example, Mozeson gives the word, "colossus," which originated as "Golios," the Hebrew word for the Biblical giant, Goliath. He states, "The Greek pronunciation would sound like "kol-ios" - just as the [Hebrew word for camel], Gamal, was rendered "kamelos." (5) Note again the interchanges between the K, G, and C.

Another key point is that it is the consonants which carry the value. Language expert, Siegfried H. Muller says, "In most languages, consonants are the main carriers of thought." Further, "The outstanding structural feature of the Hamito-Semitic family is triliterality of word roots. They consist mostly of three consonants, and the insertion or omission of vowels -- often not written and to be supplied by the reader...vocalization of consonants serves to create a set of verb and noun forms whose meanings are related to that of the root." In other words, from a word root of three consonants, various related words would be created by insertion of vowels, but all of them would carry the same basic meaning as the root. You would not be able to take a root word applied to a particular tribe of people, add differing vowels and identify a different tribe. If the cononental root word is the same, the two tribes would be the same people. For example, Muller says, "Correspondingly, from Hebrew KTV are derived KoTaV, "written," KTiVah, "writing," KTiV, "spelling," KToVet, "inscription," KTaV, "script," KaTaV, "correspondent." In all of these, although various vowels be added, the words all correspond to the same root topic. We will be applying this interesting principle shortly in connecting several seemingly unrelated ancient tribes.


Nineteenth-century scholar, Sir William Betham (1779-1853), was knighted by the King of England for his research into ancient history, language, and archaeology. He had this to say concerning vowels in ancient languages: "Vowels are often substituted for each other: the same words are written promiscuously with an a, o, and u, an e or an i." (6) As an example, he discussed the ancient inhabitants of western Britain, "the Welsh, who have ever called themselves by the name of Cymri, Cimbri, or Cumbri." (7) As can be easily seen, the name of this ancient tribe has been variously spelled with differing vowels: Y (often called a "pseudo-vowel"), I, and U. Such variations are a good example of the common vowel shifts which are found in the name of this historic people, who we will learn more of shortly.

Another scholar of renown was Dr. Richard Cumberland (1632-1718), Anglican Bishop of England in the early 17th century. He authored several celebrated books, and was well-regarded in his day for his expertise in ancient history and languages. He wrote, "The learned will not wonder at change of vowels in a name, especially when its made by authors of different countries and times, because they know this is a thing very usual; yet for the service of readers that are not much used to such changes, I will give proof thereof."

"Wherefore, I have observed, that in Jeremiah 48:23, our translation calls a place in Moab, Beth Meon, which signifies the house or temple of Meon, agreeably to the Hebrew text and to the Chaldee paraphrase. But the Septuagint calls it the house of Maon; and so doth the vulgar Latin. The Moabites agreed with the Egyptians in their idolatry, who worshipped their first king and planter as a god, under the name of Osiris. But when they speak of him as a man who first reigned among them, they call him Meon or Menes, with a Greek termination: Which word, Bochart well observes, signifies habitations or places to dwell in, which he brought them to and settled them in." Samuel Bochart (1599-1667) was a well-known Huguenot scholar.
"Now, by the same reason that Meon is changed into Maon, Menes must become Manes, as he is called in Herodotus and Dionysius Halicarnassensis, or Manis, as this god and powerful potentate is called by Plutarch de Iside. (8)

On the subject of vowels, Professor Cyrus H. Gordon, who is perhaps the leading American archaeologist of the twentieth century, stated concerning a Hebrew Old Testament name, "The ancient Hebrew text... has only the consonants...which were later supplied with vowels to make a verbal noun of it." (10) In the 6th century, A.D., Hebrew scholars added vowel marks to the text of the Hebrew Bible in an attempt to restore the original pronumciation of words. But in some cases, with words not commonly used, they had to guess what the original vowel signs should have been. One example of this is the word, Gomer, which was used in the text of Genesis, Hoseh, and Ezekiel between 1200 and 600 B.C., well over a millennium before post-New-Testament-era scholars added vowel marks. Scholars now know that the letter-sound "O" was not in use in Semitic languages in ancient times. Linguist C.B.F. Walker says that the ancient Semitic languages used the four vowel sounds a, e, i, and u. (Reading the Past, p. 26)

Dr. Isaac Mozeson adds, "The Bible has no vowel marks in the original, handwritten parchment form...Vowels are certainly interchangeable, and ought to be largely ignored when comparing words from different languages." (9) We will therefore remove the vowels in comparing the names of the following four mysterious peoples in ancient times.

It is true that some Semitic languages, such as Hebrew, originally contained no written vowels at all, but only consonants, with the vowels supplied by the reader. The drawback to this is obvious: Different speakers might use different vowels, creating a slightly different pronunciation of the same words. As an example, the name of God in Hebrew consisted of the four consonantal characters, YHVH, and is therefore called the tetragramation, meaning "four letters." Centuries later, a scholarly argument is raging concerning whether the name of God was originally pronounced Yahweh, Yahvee, Yahvah, or something similar. The solution may perhaps never be known, because of the absence of vowels in ancient written Hebrew. Indeed, it is possible that more than one pronunciation was in use in ancient times, due to the absence of stated vowels to guide the speaker.


These two principles, concerning consonants and vowels in ancient languages, will help us in identifying several ancient tribal names which are prominent in the Bible and ancient history. These are the:


These names at first notice appear to be entirely different peoples - or are they? Modern scholars now admit that at least three of them are only different forms of the same tribal name. To see that this is the case, let us first examine the above names using our language principle concerning consonants. Since the guttural consonants KH, G, and C are all interchangeable, we can rewrite these names as follows: (Note that in the third name, we can drop the "ANS" which is simply a Greek suffix indicating proper names. This gives us:


This helps to make the picture clearer, but we need to also realize that vowel shifts, or changes in the vowels used in a name, were frequent occurrences. In addition, some ancient languages did not include vowels in their writing at all. Therefore, the identity of these four can be most easily seen if we write them using the consonants only:


Repetition of consonants, as seen in the second and third names above, was also a common occurrence. Therefore, by the grammatical rules governing language, all four tribes must be one and the same people. Who were they? Let's examine them one at a time.


When the conquering armies of the nation of Assyria came against the ten-tribe kingdom of the house of Israel late in the eighth century, B.C., they did not refer to God's People as "Israel" or "Jews." Instead, the Assyrian word for them was, "Khumri." This has been established through the deciphering of Assyrian "cuneiform" clay tablets. Ancient historian, Alan Ralph Millard, in his recent book, "Treasures from Bible Times," says, "In 1846 men working for Henry Layard on the site of the ancient Assyrian city of Calah (Nimrud) uncovered a block of polished black stone, carved and inscribed. The 'Black Obelisk' records the triumphs of the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser... The first panel in the second line of pictures proved exciting. The text above the kneeling figure lists tribute brought to the king from 'Yaua son of [Khumri]' that is, Jehu, who took the throne from a descendant of Omri, king of Israel." (11) Millard reproduces the Assyrian words mentioning Israel, along with a literal translation.

Famed 19th century archaeologist, Sir Henry Layard, rediscovered the ancient Assyrian cities, and remarked, "An identification connected with this word KHUMRI or Omri is one of the most interesting instances of corroborative evidence that can be adduced of the accuracy of the interpretations of the cuneiform character...Sargon is called on the monuments of Khorsabad, 'the conqueror of Samaria and of the circuit of Beth KHUMRI'...Samaria having been built by Omri, nothing is more probable than that - in accordance with a common Eastern custom - it should have been called, after its founder, Beth KHUMRI, or the house of Omri." (12) Samaria was the capital of the Ten-Tribe Israel nation. The Assyrians named the Israelites after their King Omri, which they pronounced "Khumri" or "Gomri." This is not surprising, because the Israelites, as well, often gutturalized the pronunciation of the Hebrew "O" by prefixing to it the sound of a "G" or a "Kh." Hebrew scholar Mozeson gives, as examples, "The correct guttural pronunciation of 'olum' (world, eternity) is really 'kholum'," (13) and the city-name, "Amora," is pronounced in Hebrew, "Gomorrah." (14)

So the first mysterious tribe of our ancient list, the Khumri or Gomri, are definitely identified by ancient inscriptions as Israelites of the so-called, "lost ten tribes," who disappeared from history in the Caspian Sea region of Medo-Persia during the late 8th century and early 7th century, B.C.


The Encyclopedia Britannica says, "Certain it is that in the middle of the 7th century, B.C., Asia Minor was ravaged by northern nomads (Herodotus iv. 12), one body of whom is called in Assyrian sources Gimirrai and is represented as coming through the Caucasus. They were probably Iranian speakers, to judge by the few proper names preserved. The name has also been identified with the biblical Gomer, son of Japheth (Gen. x. 2,3). Later writers identified them with the Cimbri of Jutland, who were probably Teutonized Celts..." (15)

It is fascinating that the Gimirrai suddenly appeared out of seeming nowhere in the same century as the lost tribes of Israel disappeared, yet no scholar ventures to investigate a link between them. The additional mention of "Iranian" (i.e., Medo-Persian) words in the Gimirrai vocabulary indicates some physical contact between the Gimirrai and Medo-Persians, such as the captive Israelites might have been expected to have had. Historian Sharon Turner, in fact, stated that he identified 262 Medo-Persian loan-words in the Anglo-Saxon-Cimmerian vocabulary. (16) Who were these mysterious people? According to scholars, the Gimirrai, Gomer, Cimbri, Teutons, and Celts are all linked together as the same people. By applying the rules of language, we realize that the "Gimirrai" were also the same people as the "Khumri," who have been positively identified as Israelites of the lost ten tribes. It is therefore no coincidence that the lost tribes of Israel disappeared in Medo-Persia-Iran (II Kings 17:6), the birthplace of the Gimirrai.

The same Encyclopedia Britannica article has this to say about the people known today as Cimmerians: "An ancient people of the far north or west of Europe, first spoken of by Homer (Odyssey, xi. 12-19), who describes them as living in perpetual darkness. Herodotus (iv. 11-13), in his account of Scythia, regards them as the early inhabitants of South Russia (after whom the Bosporus Cimmerius and other places were named.)" (17) The same encyclopedia reference also traces the European "Cymry" and "Celts" to this same people. There seems to be no question in historian's minds, that whoever these Cimmerians were, they were the ancestors of a significant branch of the modern people of Europe. (See box below) Again, by applying the two basic linguistic rules mentioned previously, it may be seen that the Cimmerians were none other than the Khumri or Gomri, the lost ten tribes.


"Gomer...a people known in Assyrian inscriptions as Gamir or Gimirrai. They are the Cimmerians of ancient Greek literature...According to the Greek author Homer, the Cimmerians... appeared in the northern provinces of the Assyrian Empire at the time of Sargon II, during the 8th century, B.C....Poets of the time spoke of the "Cimmerian Bosporos," and the Armenians still call part of their country Gamir. It is thought that the Crimea bears their name to the present day." -Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 1, p. 269

"...In Yoma 10a and Yer. Meg.i.9...stands either for "Cimmerii" or for "Germany". -The Jewish Encyclopedia, vi:40
"Gomer: ...Most of the interpreters take him to be the ancestor of the Celtae, and more especially of the Cimmerii." -Popular & Critical Bible Encyclopedia, ii:726

"Gomer...became identified with the German Cimbri and the Celtic Cymry." "The old sound of their name is still retained in the mouth of the inhabitants of Wales, who call themselves Cumri or Cymry, and their land Cymru." -Franz Delitzsch, quoted in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, by John Peter Lange, xiii:362

"The Cimbri, as well as the Cumry or Cymry in Wales, and in Bretagne [Britain], are to be regarded as in relation with the Cimmerians." -Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, by John Peter Lange, i:348


The eminent Christian historian and archaeologist, Dr. Henry Sayce, stated, "Gomer is the Gimirra of the Assyrian inscriptions, the Kimmerians of the Greek writers." (18) Many reference works associate the names Gimirrai and Cimmerians with Gomer, connecting all three together (see references above) using the very same established linguistic rules we have presented. In fact, because the ancient Hebrew language did not contain vowels, the present rendering of "Gomer" is a later construction. Since it is now known that the original Assyrian word for Israel was pronounced "Khumri," and the Babylonian was "Gamir" or "Gimirrai," it is probable that the original vowel-less Hebrew word was pronounced similar to these actual forms, as well. This information is known through the reading of ancient source documents which give us an accurate view of the 7th century, B.C. world that was not possible until recent years.

The first scholarly reference above tells us that the Gimirrai suddenly appeared in history during the reign of Sargon II, 722-705 B.C. He was the Assyrian king who conquered Samaria and deported the Israelites to the Assyrian-controlled province of Medo-Persia. It is amazing that historians never notice the tremendous "coincidence" of this: The first historical notice of the existence of the Gimirrai was during the same 17 years that the Israelite-Gomri-Khumri were deported and lost to history in that same province!


But the connection of "Gomer" or "Gimirrai" with ancient Israel has been clouded by confusion over reference to them in the tenth chapter of Genesis, the so-called "register of nations." In Genesis 10:2-3, we read, "The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah." A literal, racial interpretation of these verses would make Gomer (or Gimir) a son of Japheth, and not of Shem as the Israelites were. But there are at least two important reasons why this is not so. First, Japheth lived at the time of the Noahic flood, which has been dated by Christian scholars to about 3400 B.C., more than 2,500 years before King Omri, who reigned about 882 to 871 B.C. As shown previously, the Israelites were called "Khumri" or "Gimirri" after King Omri; clearly, the "Gomer" in Genesis chapter ten is ages before his time!

Secondly, the tenth chapter of Genesis is a geographic representation of nations, rather than racial, and is allegorical rather than literal. We believe in taking the Bible literally whenever possible, interpreting allegorically only when a literal explanation cannot apply, such as the case here. It has been shown by scholars that the national relationships found in Genesis Ten do not fit a literal, racial interpretation. For example, Dr. Sayce says, "The tenth chapter of Genesis is ethnographical rather than ethnological. It does not profess to give an account of the different races of the world and to separate them one from another according to their various characteristics. It is descriptive merely, and such races of men as fell within the horizon of the writer are described from the point of view of the geographer and not of the ethnologist. The Greeks and Medes, for example, are grouped along with the Tibarenian and Moschian tribes because they all alike lived in the north; the Egyptian and the Canaanite are similarly classed together, while the Semitic Assyrian and the non-Semitic Elamite are both the children of Shem. We shall never understand the chapter rightly unless we bear in mind that its main purpose is geographical. In Hebrew, as in other Semitic languages, the relation between a mother-state to its colony, or of a town or country to its inhabitants, was expressed in a genealogical form. The inhabitants of Jerusalem were regarded as 'the daughter of Jerusalem,' the people of the east were 'the children' of the district to which they belonged." (19)

Dr. Sayce points out that this is the reason the South Arabian tribe of Sheba is listed twice in Genesis Ten, once under the designation of Ham in verse seven, and again listed under Shem in verse twenty-eight. The tribe of Sheba originated in the south, later spreading a colony far to the north to clash with Assyria in the days of Tiglath-Pilesar and Shalmanesar. (20) Sayce further remarks, "When, therefore, we are told that 'Canaan begat Zidon his first-born, and Heth,' all that is meant is that the city of Sidon, and the Hittites to whom reference is made, were alike to be found in the country called Canaan. It does not follow that there was any ethnological kinship between the Phoenician builders of Sidon and the prognathous [i.e., 'protruding-jaw'] Hittites from the north. Indeed, we know from modern research that there was none." (21) Sayce, in fact, reproduces Egyptian drawings of both Phoenicians and Hittites, (shown in the printed form of this tract) showing graphically that there was a dramatic difference in racial features (and therefore origins) between these two peoples. Similarly, Assyria, Elam, and Babylonia (Arphaxad) were called brethren, "not because the natives of them claimed descent from a common father, but because they occupied the same quarter of the world." (22) Ancient races portrayed on Egyptian monuments are shown in the printed version of this tract, reproduced from Sayce's book. Included are a king of the Hittites (with pigtail), Hittite soldiers, an Israelite, and a chief of Ganata or Gath, showing Phoenician-Canaanite features. (23)


GOMER: Assyrian, Khumri or Gomri; Babylonian, Gimirrai or Gamir, Greek, Cimmerian; English/Welsh, Cymry, Cimbri, Cumbri, or Celt

JEZREEL: "Scattered" into Assyrian dispersion 762-676 B.C.

LO-RUHAMAH: "Not pitied" by God because their sins received a just recompense.

LO-AMMI: "Not God's People," because they were divorced by Him and sent away to a far land.. Scholars have traced their migration through the Caucasus Mountain region and into Europe in the early pre-Christian centuries.

SONS OF THE LIVING GOD: "Christians" -Israel's ultimate restoration would later come when they accepted Christ as Savior, becoming His Bride at the marriage supper of the lamb.


The name, Gomer, appears again in an interesting passage in Hoseh 1:3. The Encyclopedia Britannica comments on that prophetic book by saying,: "The most interesting and important problem of the book relates to the marriage of Hosea, which is closely related to the form and content of his message. According to the first chapter, Hosea is commanded to take a harlot for his wife and children of harlotry; he therefore marries Gomer bath Diblaim, who subsequently has three children, to whom the prophet gives symbolic names that he may make them the texts of prophetic messages concerning Israel." (24) In prophetic symbolism, the prophet Hoseh marries an Israelite harlot named "Gomer," (probably originally pronounced "Gomri" or "Gimir") symbolizing the Ten Tribes of Israel, who true to the prophecy became known as Gimirrai or Cimmerians. In God's eyes, Israel indeed was a harlot adulterating herself with false worship, and the fact she is purposely called "Gomer" shows that people to be ethnic Israelites. The symbolism continues with their children's names: Jezreel, (meaning "scattered"), Lo-Ruhamah ("not pitied"), and Lo-Ammi ("not my people"). As these prophetic names show, Israel was punished by being conquered, scattered in the Assyrian dispersion, and divorced by God. Hoseh's words therefore make no logical prophetic sense unless "Gomer" and her offspring were lost and dispersed Israel and their descendants. Hoseh 1:10 is appropriate here: "In the place where it was said unto them, 'You are not my people,' (i.e., no longer recognized as Israel and perhaps blind to their true identity), there shall they be called, 'sons of the living God.' (i.e., "Christ-sons" or Christians, an indication that a Spiritual transformation in them would later occur). History recorded the fulfillment of that prophecy when the "Celtic-Cimmerian" peoples migrated into Europe, accepted Christianity, and became known as Christendom, or "Christ's Kingdom."

"Hoseh's words make no logical prophetic sense unless Gomer and her offspring were lost and dispersed Israel."


One last important reference to Gomer needs to be mentioned, which appears in Ezekiel chapter 38. Gomer is listed as joining a confederacy led by "Gog, chief prince of Meschech and Tubal." Gomer apparently does not lead this confederacy, nor are the other listed confederate nations Israelites. In addition, one should not assume that all of the lost tribes, Gomer/Gamir, are allied with Gog, but only one portion. So it is primarily a non-Israel invading force, which also includes some number of Israelites. Therefore, dispensationalists who identify Gomer as Europe may be at least partially right in that identification, because the Celtic-Cymry race did spread throughout Europe, before colonizing North America, Australia, South Africa, and other lands. But because Gog's army invades the "mountains of Israel," they assume that Gomer itself must not be Israelite. That assumption has little basis. Israelites have warred among themselves since the kingdom was divided into Israel and Judah after the time of Solomon, about 975 B.C. Whether the battle typified in Ezekiel is literal or allegory is impossible to predict beforehand, but that it represents to some degree yet another fratricidal war between Israelites seems obvious.

One possible fulfillment was addressed in the old nineteenth-century prophecy, "GEORGE WASHINGTON'S VISION," a prophetic vision received by America's first President during the Revolutionary War. It speaks of a confederacy comprised of "Europe, Asia, and Africa" coming in battle against America: "Then my eyes beheld a fearful scene: From each of these countries arose thick, black clouds that were soon joined into one." The late Professor C.A.L. Totten of Yale University wrote in the year 1898: "The third and last peril clearly indicates a future invasion of our country by the Old World. The drift of events and Bible prophecy indicate that a great combination of powers will be the actor." (25) In the prophecy, help against this peril comes in the form of divine assistance, apparently the Second Advent.

-Dr. Thomas Scott's Bible Commentary,
Vol. IV, p. 704, Hoseh 1:2 (1864)


The Encyclopedia Britannica article we quoted states that it is "certain" that the tribe of Gomer is identified with the Celts, Teutons, and related peoples of Europe. We have found through linguistics (the study of languages), as well as through Bible prophecy in Hoseh, that the people called Gomer or Gimir are in fact Israelites. Linguistically, Israel's name, Khumri, is the phonetic equivalent of the European, Cymri; and Gomri/Khumri is also the consonantal equivalent to Gomer, Gimir, and Cimmiri. Therefore, if it is indeed a certainty that Gomer is found in the Europeans of today, then it is an equal certainty that those same Europeans are Israelites.
We have quoted sources that find these Cymry-Celtic people in England, Wales, and Germany. The Encyclopedia Britannica further traces them to Scandinavia, Scotland, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, and Russia; in fact, they spread themselves throughout the continent of Europe. The Britannica also reveals that the New Testament Epistle to the Galatians was written to them,26 in which the Apostle Paul refers to them as "the sons of Abraham." (Galatians 3:7)

It is odd that scholars so easily admit to certainty concerning the relationship between the names Gomer, Gimirrai, and Cimmeri, yet are silent concerning the name Khumri. It is never mentioned or investigated. Author and historian Geoffrey Ashe, mentioned earlier, states that it is "altogether too complicated" and "a theme for speculation only." That argument is rather specious, since it never appears "too complicated" for them to positively link the other three names Gomer, Gimirrai, and Cimmeri, using the same rules!

Mr. Ashe also speaks of "alleged linguistic coincidences" which support the Anglo-Israel view. But there is nothing either alleged or coincidental about it. The information we have presented is based upon standard, accepted grammatical rules, and the known fact that Israel was the Khumri of the ancient inscriptions. Since the name Gomri/Khumri is the consonantal equivalent of Gomer, Gimir, and Cymri, it would indeed be a strange "coincidence" if they were not identical peoples! Scholars don't consider the identity of the latter three as coincidence, but as fact!
What does this mean to you and I who trace our roots to this same Biblical people? It is a tremendous heritage and responsibility that we realize. Israel was to be God's servant nation, and a light to the world. Israel, too, would receive many promises, including Jacob's blessing as outlined in Genesis chapter 49. The knowledge of your identity should inspire and invigorate you with evangelical fervor, to make a positive difference in your world and to serve God more faithfully each day. The Anglo-Israel identity is now a proven fact! What you do with this knowledge is up to you. See to it that you make your calling and election sure! (2Peter 1:10)


Geoffrey Ashe, article: "Lost Tribes Of Israel," in "The Encyclopedia of Myth and Magic," pp. 1645-1646.
Dr. O'Brien, quoted in Betham, "Etruria-Celtica," 1842, vol. 1, p. 59
McClintock & Strong's Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 603
Dr. Isaac Elchanan Mozeson, "The Word," 1989, p. 39
ibid., p. 49
Sir William Betham, "Etruria-Celtica," 1842, vol. 1, p. 58
ibid., p. 14
Dr. Richard Cumberland, "Origines Gentium Antiquissimae; or, Attempts For Discovering the Times Of the First Planting of Nations," London, 1724, p. 331
Dr. Cyrus H. Gordon, "The Common Background Of Greek And Hebrew Civilizations," W.W. Norton & Co., 1965, p. 138
Mozeson, p. 10
Alan Ralph Millard, "Treasures From Bible Times," 1985, p. 31
Sir Austen Henry Layard, "Discoveries Among The Ruins Of Assyria And Babylon," G.P. Putnam & Sons, 1853, chapter 26, pp. 492-494 abridged edition; pp. 612-614 unabridged edition
Mozeson, p. 48
ibid., p. 80
Encyclopedia Britannica, 1957, vol. v, p. 707-8
Sharon Turner, "History of the Anglo-Saxons," 1836, p. 100
Encyclopedia Britannica, ibid., p. 707
Dr. A. H. Sayce, "Races of the Old Testament," 1925, p. 71
ibid., p. 65-66
ibid., p. 67
ibid., p. 66
ibid., p. 66-67
ibid., frontispiece
Encyclopedia Britannica, 1957, vol. xi, p.783
National Forecast Magazine, vol. xix, Oct., 1959
Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910, vol. v, p. 611-614

Back To Top