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






The Tribe of Dan in Europe

the historic connection
between the biblical tribe of dan
and the early european tribe of danaan

An extract taken from the classic book, "Ethnology of Europe,"
by Dr. Robert G. Latham. Published by Jan Van Voorst,
Paternoster Row, London, England, 1852


Leading scholars such as Latham in the nineteenth century, and Dr. Cyrus Gordon in the late twentieth century, have stated that the early European colonizing tribe, the Danaan, were none other than the Biblical tribe of Dan. The Danaan were a people who colonized the ancient world from Greece to the British Isles and Denmark (i.e., "Dan's mark" or settlement). If the Biblical tribe of Dan settled in early Europe, it is probable that other Israelite tribes did also, especially the tribes of Asher and Zebulon. See below as well as the well-researched book, "Israel's Lost Empires," by Steven Collins for more information.

Robert Gordon Latham. Born at Billingborough, Lincolnshire, March 24, 1812: died at Putney, March 9, 1888. A noted English philologist, ethnologist, and physician. He was a graduate of King’s College, Cambridge, 1832; professor of English in University College, London, 1839; and lecturer and assistant physician at Middlesex Hospital. He published “Norway and the Norwegians” (1840), “The English Language” (1841), “An Elementary English Grammar” (1843), “A Handbook of the English Language” (1851), an edition of Johnson’s “Dictionary,” and numerous works on ethnology.” -Century Cyclopedia Of Names, p. 594

            “The influences from Syria and Palestine were either Phoenician or Jewish, and by no means exclusively Phoenician. The selling of the sons and daughters of Judah into captivity beyond the sea, is a fact attested by Isaiah. Neither do I think that the eponymus of the Argive Danai was other than that of the Israelite tribe of Dan; only we are so used to confine ourselves to the soil of Palestine in our consideration of the history of the Israelites, that we treat them as if they were adscripti glebae, and ignore the share they may have taken in the ordinary history of the world. Like priests of great sanctity, they are known in the holy places only – yet the seaports between Tyre and Ascalon, of Dan, Ephraim, and Asher, must have followed the history of seaports in general, and not have stood on the coast for nothing. What a light would be thrown on the origin of the name Pelop-o-nesus, and the history of the Pelop-id family, if a bona fide nation of Pelopes, with unequivocal affinities, and contemporary annals, had existed on the coast of Asia! Who would have hesitated to connect the two? Yet with the Danae and the tribe of Dan this is the case, and no one connects them.

            In these remarks I by no means say that the resemblance is not accidental; although my opinion is against it being so. I only say that a conclusion which would have been suggested if the tribe of Dan had been Gentiles has been neglected because they were Jews.

            That the alphabet and the weights and measures of Greece are Phoenician is likely enough; indeed, from the extent to which the habit of circumcision was strange to the Hellenes, the evidence is in favour of the coasts of Phoenicia, and the Philistine country having supplied a larger immigration than those of the Holy Land. In respect to the infusion itself of Semitic blood, whatever may have been the details of its origin, it was considerable; and has generally been admitted to have been so.” [End of remarks by R.G. Latham; emphasis in original text.]

Editor’s comment:

            Dr. Latham is entirely correct in his judgment. For centuries a latent animosity toward the Jews prevented Western scholars from an impartial examination of the evidence in favor of our common descent from the ancient Hebrews. As a result, Hebrew colonization has not been given proper study by those whose prejudices prefer to think of them as a land-locked unimportant tribe. Latham aptly characterizes this thinking by the Latin term, adscripti glebae, which has the implication, ‘permanently embedded to the land.’ Why, he asks, would Hebrews establish seaport cities if they had no interest in sea trade? The Bible gives us such evidence, for Solomon had at sea a navy that sailed with the navy of Phoenicia:

“And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon.” (1 Kings 9:26-27)

“For the king’s ships went to Tarshish with the servants of Hiram: every three years once came the ships of Tarshish bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks. And king Solomon passed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom.” (2 Chron. 9:21-22)

            Archaeologists have also unearthed an 8th century, B.C. Hebrew seal with the emblem of a ship. It is an obvious inference that the ancient Irish tuatha de Danaan, who trace their origin to the East, are related to both the Danaan of early Greece and the Biblical tribe of Dan. It is a known fact that the old word, ‘tuatha,’ means tribe; ‘tuatha de Danaan’ therefore means, ‘tribe of Dan.’ Well-respected modern archaeologist, Cyrus Gordon, (who was called the leading American archaeologist of the 20th century by Archaeology Magazine in 1996), also tied the tribe of Dan to the tuatha de Danaan of early Ireland. Gordon states:

            “A group of Sea People bore the name of “Dan.” The Bible tells how a segment of the seafaring (Judges 5:17) Danites [were part of] the tribal system of ancient Israel… The Danites were widespread. Cyprus was called Ia-Dnan ‘The Island of Dan(an).’ The same people were called Danuna, and under this name they appear as rulers of the Plain of Adana in Cilicia. Greek tradition has their eponymous ancestor, Danaos (Dan), migrating from the Nile delta to Greece… [Note that the Israelites did in fact migrate from Egypt.] So important was this movement that the Greeks afterward called themselves Danaoi for centuries. Virgil also designated the Greeks as “Danai.” Bold scholars see the influence of the Danites in Irish folk-lore… and in the name of Danmark (“Denmark”): the land of Dan… it is a mistake to accept the consensus and to imagine that Sea People with enough striking power… to change the course of history were unenterprising to the point of never sailing west of Gibraltar.”

            Dr. Gordon also points out Biblical evidence that “three of the [Israel] tribes are described as navigational: Zebulon, Dan and Asher (Genesis 49:13; Judges 5:17).”

(Excerpted from pp. 108, 111, 112, Before Columbus: Links Between the Old World and Ancient America, by Cyrus Gordon, Crown Publishers, New York, 1971)


Back To Top