Beyond Arsareth:

The Twelve Tribes of Israel Today

By David Stewart. Email: dgstewart@yahoo.com

Copyright 2004. Version of 7 November 2004.

http://www.cumorah.com/

Disclaimer

This article represents a compilation of data, traditions, and history on the twelve tribes of Israel from many sources, as well as original data on lineage declared through LDS patriarchal blessings. The limitations of tradition and history and the controversial nature conclusions drawn from present DNA data should be recognized. Many theories of the location of different “lost tribes” have been presented over the years. While I have attempted to present some of the highlights cited by proponents of different “lost tribe” claims, these are not my theories, and I do not claim the mandate for fact for them. They are presented simply as interesting data points and correlations that may or may not be meritorious. This data is presented for interest only, and I do not endorse the views or conclusions of other authors cited in this work.

I am also well aware that ethnohistorical and other evidence suggests that most people-groups claimed as “lost tribe” peoples have undergone significant intermixing with other peoples, and that beyond the similarities between ancient Israelite traditions and those of the various groups cited in this article, there are profound dissimilarities. In many of these cases, the Israelite element may be only a small factor in an amalgam of other influences. The topic of the “lost tribes” continues to be one of ongoing research and much controversy. I invite readers to keep open minds, but also to recognize the limitations of this material and to avoid jumping to conclusions not adequately supported by existing data.

Feedback and submissions are always appreciated, and can be sent to the email address listed above.

The House of Israel in Literal and Figurative Terms

In the scriptures, the designation of Israel is used both in a literal and a figurative sense. In a figurative sense, the “House of Israel” represents the righteous rather than those with a particular genealogy. Early in his ministry, Christ taught the Pharisees: “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire” (Luke 3:8-9). When the Pharisees claimed justification through their Abrahamic lineage, Christ replied: “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham” (John 8:39). He taught that only obedience to God – and not earthly lineage – can make us part of God’s eternal family: “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matthew 12:50). Christ commended the faith of the Gentile centurion: “I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:10-12) In the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord states that “the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim,” referring to lineage in a figurative sense (D&C 64:36). Latter-day Saints believe in the “literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes” (Article of Faith 10) and that the declaration of lineage in patriarchal blessings reflects at least a component of genuine genetic ancestry, although Gentiles without Israelite ancestry can be “adopted” into a tribe.

A Caution about “Lost Tribe” Claims

One must note with dismay that at least some theories promulgated today and in past centuries claiming Israelite ancestry for various non-LDS groups have been, in at least some cases, attempts by various individuals and factions to claim “Israelite” ancestry to document their own imagined spiritual or genetic superiority. Even a cursory reading of the scriptures above demonstrates that claims that one “tribe” is superior to another, or to Gentiles without any Israelite lineage, are categorically false. The twelve tribes of Israel all have their own unique attributes, and in the scriptural sense, those without any Israelite ancestry have full opportunity to be “adopted” into an Israelite tribe in the gospel. There can be no possible claims of the “superiority” or “inferiority” of any group based on their genetic makeup. The partisan and sometimes even racist nature of some (only a small minority) of the books and resources on the “Lost Tribes” that have been published over the years necessitates that any claims about the “Lost Tribes” should be scrutinized carefully and with a grain of salt, and that claims of groups with unsavory political or social agendas are best ignored altogether. I strongly denounce groups and ideologies that use their own speculative beliefs about the so-called “British Israelitism” or Israelite lineage in attempts that they perceive to elevate themselves or demean others. In writing this article, have tried to avoid any sources tied to such groups, as they demonstrate both bigoted thinking and poor scholarship.

Myths about the Tribes of Israel

Over the years, there has some been conjecture about the “Lost Tribes” of Israel being hidden under the polar icecaps, in “secret cities” in Russia, on another planet, in the center of the Earth, under the sea, and so forth. These theories run counter to both scriptural and historical evidence and are based in unfounded assumptions.

We can easily test the validity of such theories by questioning their proponents: “Brother Jones, do you live under a polar icecap?” The answer will invariably be in the negative. “Do you live in the center of the earth?” No. “Do you live in a secret city?” Also, no. “What tribe are you from, Brother Jones?” Ephraim. “The lost tribe of Ephraim?” Yes. “Then it is evident that the lost tribes do not live in any of these locations.”

The overwhelming preponderance of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been identified by patriarchal blessings as members of the tribes of Ephraim or Manasseh. These lineages are so common that many Latter-day Saints do not realize that Ephraim and Manasseh are in fact two of the “lost ten tribes.” The “found tribes” of the Bible are the tribes of the Kingdom of Judah, i.e. Judah, Benjamin, and a portion of the tribe of Levi.

In what sense are the “Lost Tribes” lost?

The “Lost Tribes of Israel” are lost not because they represent people not found among the almost seven billion known inhabitants of the planet, but because their ancestors fell into apostasy and their identity was lost. The members of these tribes today are unaware of their ancient ancestry, just as the Latter-day Lehites to whom Mormon wrote: “Know ye that ye are of the house of Israel. Know yet that ye must come to repentance, or ye cannot be saved...Know ye that ye must come to the knowledge of your fathers, and repent of all your sins and iniquities, and believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God...Therefore repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus, and lay hold upon the gospel of Christ, which shall be set before you, not only in this record but also in the record which shall come unto the Gentiles from the Jews” (Mormon 7:2,3,5,8).

One individual commented: “We don’t know where the lost tribes are, otherwise they wouldn’t be lost!” While this is still at least partially true, today we have resources and information on the tribes not available to past generations. Implicit in the scriptural doctrine of the “gathering of Israel and the restoration of the ten tribes” is the teaching that the tribes are not lost forever, but will be “found” in the years of gathering. The information that we have is still very limited, although it will inevitably grow.

If the LDS Church is worldwide, why haven’t the “Lost Tribes” been found?

As the LDS Church now is an international church with adherents in over 140 nations, why have not far more descendants of tribes other than Ephraim and Manasseh been identified? The answer lies in highly inflated views of international LDS outreach. The majority of LDS members worldwide come from a handful of ethnic groups, while most other groups are unreached or under-reached. 85% of LDS members live in the Western Hemisphere, and another 10% live on island nations. Only 5% of LDS members live on the continental land mass of Europe, Asia, and Africa that is home to approximately 80% of the world’s population. Even this 5% is unevenly distributed, with the majority living of these living in just six nations -– Korea, Nigeria, Germany, South Africa, France, and Italy -- and the city of Hong-Kong. Thousands of people-groups and languages of the world are almost completely unreached by the restored gospel, while many others have only token representation. Even in large nations like Russia and Ukraine there are, as yet, no stakes, and therefore no patriarchs. The only members in such nations with patriarchal blessings are expatriates who have lived or traveled abroad in areas where the Church is more established. The only evidence of patriarchal blessing lineage in these areas comes from small numbers of expatriate and immigrant members. Nonetheless, these groups provide significant new data. While the lineages of Ephraim and Manasseh are dominant in most nations where the Church has been long established, some other culture groups have a preponderance of different lineages. This body of data will increase in coming years with the eventual establishment of stakes in additional nations and the expansion of outreach to as yet unreached people-groups. As new data is collected, the path of dispersion of each of the tribes of Israel will become better defined.

The Doctrine of the Scattering and Gathering of Israel

The scriptures teach that the “lost tribes” are “scattered upon all the face of the earth” (not inside or under the earth, but on its face) and also “among all nations,” while the relative concentrations may vary. The promises of the Lord to gather the tribes of Israel (spiritually and physically) are equally evident. The grafting of branches of the “natural olive tree” into the “wild olive trees” (see Jacob 5) increased the fruitfulness of many portions of the Lord's vineyard.

The doctrine of the scattering and gathering of Israel is taught in the Bible and Book of Mormon:

Wherefore, the things of which I have read are things pertaining to things both temporal and spiritual; for it appears that the house of Israel, sooner or later, will be scattered upon all the face of the earth, and also among all nations. And behold, there are many who are already lost from the knowledge of those who are at Jerusalem. Yea, the more part of all the tribes have been led away; and they are scattered to and fro upon the isles of the sea; and whither they are none of us knoweth, save that we know that they have been led away. 1 Nephi 22:3-4

“Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth.” (Isaiah 43:5-6)

“And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.” (Jeremiah. 23:2-3)

“Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.” (Jeremiah 29:12-14)

“Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely.” (Jeremiah 32: 37)

“And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” (Isaiah 11:10-12)

“Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD: Although I have cast them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come. Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.” (Ezekiel 11:16-17)

Of the gathering of the tribes of Israel in the latter days, Joseph Smith taught:

“Those engaged in seeking the outcasts of Israel, and the dispersed of Judah, cannot fail to enjoy the Spirit of the Lord and have the choicest blessings of Heaven rest upon them in copious effusions… He who scattered Israel has promised to gather them; therefore inasmuch as you are to be instrumental in this great work, He will endow you with power, wisdom, might, and intelligence, and every qualification necessary; while your minds will expand wider and wider, until you can circumscribe the earth and the heavens, reach forth into eternity, and contemplate the mighty acts of Jehovah in all their variety and glory.” (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 4:128-29)

Records of the Tribes

The Book of Mormon teaches that in addition to the divine records contained in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, additional records of “lost tribes” of Israel will be restored in the last days:

"For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it. And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews. And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever." (2 Nephi 29:12-14)

Many nations have divine records that we do not yet know of. The delivery of these records will be miraculous, like the coming forth of the Book of Mormon: Nephi “beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb" (1 Nephi 13:39).

Prophets of the Lost Tribes

The Doctrine and Covenants teaches: "They who are in the north countries shall come in remembrance before the Lord; and their prophets shall hear his voice, and shall no longer stay themselves; and they shall smite the rocks, and the ice shall flow down at their presence" (D&C 133:26).

Some have misunderstood this scripture to mean that the “lost tribes” have the correct gospel and priesthood authority among them. A careful reading demonstrates that the scripture does not suggest this at all. It notes: "their prophets shall hear his voice and shall no longer stay themselves." This implies a prior state of apostasy in which these individuals did not hear the Lord’s voice and “stayed themselves.” The scriptures teach clearly that the Lord withholds his voice only in time of apostasy, and that restoration is achieved only through repentance: “Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 3:7).

The use of the word “prophets” does not necessarily imply preexisting priesthood authority. We have record in the Bible of at least one “prophetess” who did not hold the priesthood, as well as many minor prophets whose priesthood status is not recorded. The apostle John taught that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10). In the scriptural sense the term prophet is used to describe witnesses of Christ, but does not necessarily imply priesthood authority. While today LDS apostles are considered to be “prophets, seers, and revelators,” the Book of Mormon dialogue that “a seer is greater than a prophet” (Mosiah 8:15-16) implies that it is possible to be a prophet in the scriptural sense without holding any particular priesthood office.

We learn from this scripture that the prophets of the “lost tribes” – likely native missionaries and local leaders – will be influential in gathering their own people after they experience conversion.

The Day of Ephraim

Some may wonder why the overwhelming majority of patriarchal blessings of saints in North America, as well as many other areas of the world, declare the lineage of Ephraim, with most of the remainder declaring lineage from Manasseh. Hyrum Smith, the former patriarch of the LDS Church, taught:

“It is my testimony that ‘today' is the day of Ephraim. It is the day which the Lord has set to fulfill his promises made in the times of the ancient patriarchs, when he said that he would scatter Israel to the four corners of the world, and that Ephraim should be scattered in all the nations, and then in the 'last days' be gathered out again. Many are being gathered out by our missionaries, as 'one of a family and two of a city;' and they are found here, gathered into a gathering place appointed of the Lord, and they are receiving his blessings. This is why, so many of us are declared to be of Ephraim. If there were time I would like to speak further about our blessings. The Prophet Joseph Smith, was declared to be of this house of Joseph, a chosen vessel. Read 2 Nephi, chapter 3, relative to the promises made regarding him. But the principal point I have in mind at the present time is the fact that we may discover our lineage, or where we stand in Israel.”

The Origin of Nations

In most cases, the “blood of Israel” can be viewed as only an admixture in populations of predominately Gentile lineage. Genesis Chapter 10 describes how the earth was settled by the descendants of the three sons of Noah after the deluge. In the first century AD, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus correlated the genealogy of Genesis to people-groups existing at that time (Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 6).

The Law of Adoption

Elder Andrew Jenson, former assistant church huistorian, stated: “We have also a number in the Church, who, so far as we are able to judge and learn, did not originally belong to the house of Israel at all. Then you say, where do they get their blessings? What is their lineage? Well, I explain that in this way: When you adopt a child that does not belong to you originally, and that child grows up in your family, it obtains its blessings the same as other members of your family. It is the same as your own. If I adopt a child that is born in the world I share my blessings with that child, as he shares his blessings with me. In my household I am responsible, he partakes at the same 'table,' the same blessings. By the law of adoption that child receives his right to the blessings of my household, and therefore he belongs to my household through the law of adoption. Through our faithfulness we are all adopted into the fold of Christ. We are his and his blessings are upon us, through our faithfulness in obeying the laws of his Gospel. And so, if other people outside of the house of Israel have faith and obedience enough to come into the Church they will receive their lineage and blessings according to the house which they enter. If they enter into the family of Israel they will receive the same lineage as the house or tribe that adopted them, just the same as the adopted child receives the blessings of the family that adopted him…Today we are discovering, through the kindness and mercy of the Lord, that his promises are being fulfilled and that his blessings are being received by those who are observing his laws and keeping his commandments. “

Creation of the Blood of Abraham in those Adopted into the House of Israel

Joseph Smith taught:

“This first Comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 149)

Early History

The lands of inheritance given to each of the twelve tribes are delineated in Joshua chapters 13-17. These are widely known and will not be reiterated here

The captivity of the ten tribes of the Northern kingdom occurred in two “phases.” The first resulted in the captivity of Gilead and Galilee. In approximately 740 BC, Tiglath-pileser of Assyria conquered Gilead and resettled the two and a half “east Jordan” tribes – Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh:

“God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day” (1 Chronicles 5:26).

2 Kings gives us a more complete list of the areas conquered by Tiglath-pileser (spelled Tiglath-pilneser in Chronicles):

“In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria” (2 Kings 15:29).

“Gilead” was the area east of the Jordan river and was home to the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and half-Manasseh. Janoah, Kedesh and Hazor were cities in the land of Napthali. Ijon and Abel-beth-maachah (sometimes referred to as simply “Abel”) were in the territory of the tribe of Dan. Galilee included much of the area of the tribes of Zebulun, Naphtali, Asher, and Issachar. In this first wave, the entire tribes of Reuben, Gad, Naphtali, and half-Manasseh were removed, along with most or all members of the tribes of Dan (made vulnerable by its location at the extreme north of the kingdom), Asher, and Issachar. The entire Israelite populations of Gilead and Galilee had been resettled, leaving to the Northern Kingdom only Samaria with the tribe of Ephraim and the half-tribe of Manasseh.

The reason for the mention of the sole capture of Gilead in Chronicles is not known, although it possible that a progressive invasion occurred with some time interval separating the various conquests. The captivity was not purely the result of aggression of a foreign power, but of treachery within the Israelite nation. The wicked king Ahaz of Judah had hired Tiglath-pileser to attack Israel with silver and gold taken from the temple of the Lord, resulting in the northern captivity (2 Kings 16:7-8).

The second phase occurred in approximately 722 B.C. when Samaria was captured by Shalmaneser of Assyria and the remaining one and a half tribes of the Northern Kingdom – Ephraim and half-Manasseh – were taken captive into Assyria (2 Kings 17:3-6). An inscription at Sargon II’s palace at Ninevah describes the event: “At the beginning of my rule, in my first year of reign ... Samerinai (the people of Samaria) ... 27,290 people, who lived therein, I carried away…” The number deported by Sargon seems relatively small, but it should be remembered that most of the Northern Kingdom had already been carried away by Tiglath-pileser. The deportations were complete: “Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them from His sight; there was none left but the tribe of Judah alone ... The Lord rejected all the descendants of Israel, afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of plunderers, until He had cast them from His sight” (2 Kings 17:18). The inhabitants of Samaria were resettled to precisely the same location as the inhabitants of Gilead and Galilee: “In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (2 Kings 17:6).

The Assyrians then brought “men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim” and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof” (2 Kings 17:24).

The first wave of the captivity of Judah began in 701 B.C. when Sennacherib carried captives of Jewish cities into Assyria. In the Assyrian record, Sennacherib records:

“As for Hezekiah, the Judean, I besieged forty-six of his fortified walled cities and surrounding smaller towns, which were without number. Using packed-down ramps and applying battering rams, infantry attacks by mines, breeches, and siege machines, I conquered (them). I took out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, cattle, and sheep, without number, and counted them as spoil. He himself, I locked up within Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthworks, and made it unthinkable for him to exit by the city gate.”

Deportations from Judah to Babylon (mainly of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) occurred under the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzer in 597 B.C. and again in 586 B.C, although some Jews remained in Judea (Jeremiah 40-43). In 536 B.C., Cyrus issued a decree allowing Jews to return to Judea (Ezra 1:2), although only a portion returned to their ancestral homeland.

The Missing Tribe of Simeon

Two tribes are missing from our list: Simeon and Levi. Levi, the priestly tribe, had no territory of its own, but had priest-cities scattered throughout the lands of all of the other tribes. Therefore, a portion of the Levites were included in every phase of the captivity and dispersion. What of the tribe of Simeon? Simeon was assigned an inheritance in the very south of Israel, south of the tribe of Judah. While Simeon was one of the more numerous tribes at the time of the Exodus (Numbers 1), 1 Chronicles 4:27 records: “neither did all their family multiply like the children of Judah.” The Simeonites still inhabited the south in the time of King David (1 Chronicles 12:25), however, in subsequent years, mass migrations of Simeonites occurred to scattered locations in the divided kingdom of Israel. Many Simeonites returned to the south during the reign of Asa, king of Judah (2 Chroncles 15:9). It appears that the large body of the Simeonites had migrated to the northern Kingdom of Israel and never returned, as during the days of the divided kingdom, the southern Kingdom consisted only of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a portion of Levi. The scriptures are silent on this event and it is implied based on the absence of Simeon from the southern kingdom and the mention that the Simeonites in the area during Asa’s time were “strangers” who had returned from the northern kingdom. The Simeonites are never again mentioned as a cohesive body in scripture, fulfilling even at this early date Jacob’s prophecy that Simeon would be divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel (1 Genesis 49:5-7). We may conclude that Simeonites, like the Levites, were found in scattered locations throughout Israel at the time of the captivity and were thus resettled piecemeal.

Many theories Velikovsky argues that the traditional location of the East Jordan resettlement areas of Hara, Habor, Halah, and the River of Gozan cannot be conclusively identified with their traditional locations in Kurdistan/Greater Armenia. He notes:

“The sentence in II Kings 17:6 is repeated almost verbatim in 18:11. In I Chronicles 5:26, ...the Transjordan tribes-- Reuben, Gad and the half-tribe Manasseh -- were exiled to Halah, and Habor and Hara,and to the river Gozan ... It is generally agreed that the location of Halah (in Hebrew with two letters kheth, transcribed as h in scholarly texts), or Khalakh, is not given to identification. As to Gozan, the texts of II Kings 17:6 and 18:11 speak of Habor by the river Gozan; also I Chronicles 5:26 speaks of the river Gozan. In Isaiah 37:12 it can be understood as a region or a people of a region. The correct translation of the two passages in the Second Book of Kings is 'to the confluence (habor) of the river Gozan.' [Cf. Strong's Concordance of the Bible, p. 36 where (Hebrew section) habor is translated from the root word meaning 'to join.'] Biblical scholars who sought for the place of exile of, first, the two and a half tribes of Israel by Tiglath-Pileser and then of all the tribes of Israel by Sargon upon the fall of Samaria, decided that the river's name was Habor and Gozan was the region. They have therefore identified Gozan with Guzana, modern Tell Halaf in northeastern Syria. But this interpretation is a violation of the texts. Looking for a river Habor, they thought to identify it with the tributary of the river Euphrates mentioned in Ezekiel 1:3 'the word of the Lord came...unto Ezekiel...in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar.' However the spellings in Hebrew of Habor and Chebar are different, the river Khvor (Chebar) is not Habor, and the latter is not a river at all. Furthermore, the co-called river Chebar is actually an irrigation canal. [See Atlas of the Bible, (ed. by J. L. Gardener, 1981), p. 145; also consult W. Gesenius, Hebrew Lexicon (Brown, Driver, Briggs), p. 140, 'Kebar,' 'a river (or perhaps a canal) of Babylonia, not at present identified . . .'

LMG/WBS] from Immanuel Velikovsky, “Beyond the Mountains of Darkness,” as cited at http://www.varchive.org/ce/baalbek/khazars.htm

Velikovsky goes on to theorize that the Israelites were actually resettled to the Volga:

If the Assyrians did not make a halt on the plain that stretches immediately behind the Caucasus and moved along the great rivers without crossing them to conquer the great plain that lies open behind the narrow span where the rivers Don and Volga converge? Then the most probable place of exile might be reckoned to be at the middle Volga. The distance from Dur Sharrukin to this region on the Russian (Scythian) plain is in fact much less than the distance from Nineveh to Thebes in Egypt, a path taken by Assurbanipal several decades later. Under Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Assyrian armies repeatedly invaded 'Patursi and Kusi' ?Upper Egypt and Ethiopia (Sudan). But Assyrian occupation of Scythia is not a mere conjecture: it is confirmed by archaeological evidence. 'The earliest objects from Scythia that we can date,'rites a student of the region's antiquities, 'referred to the VIIth and VIth centuries B.C., are under overwhelming Assyrian influence. . .' (Ellis H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks (Cambridge, 1913), p. 263.)'

While Velikovsky's assertion that the Biblical “Gozan” is in fact the city of Kazan on the northern Volga river is unsupported by any meangingful evidence, he raises some interesting questions. His assertion of Assyrian occupation of Scythia is interesting, although this will need to be examined further.

The Cities of the Medes

Nonetheless, most historians believe that Velikovsky’s theories suffer from a fatal flaw. Whatever the alleged extent of the Assyrian empire, the resettling of the Northern captivity to the “cities of the Medes” effectively precludes the Volga river as a viable locale, as there is no evidence that the Volga basin was ever considered a part of the district of Media. Rather, ancient Media occupied much of the territory of modern “Kurdistan” (parts of Eastern Turkey, northeastern Iraq, and northwestern Iran), Azerbaijan, and the what are today predominately ethnic Azeri areas of northern Iran to the west and south of the Capsian Sea. This district lies not far to the east of the Euphrates, and the Euphrates river defines the Westernmost spread of traditional Kurdish settlement in much of Turkey and part of northern Iraq.

The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote:

"So he [Esdras or Ezra] read the epistle at Babylon to the Jews [that is: Hebrews] that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Media; and when these Jews had understood what piety the king had toward God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans [i.e. the “non-lost” tribes of Judah and Benjamin], while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers." (Antiquities of the Jews 11:2).

Josephus described the ten tribes as being “beyond the Euphrates,” and apparently not far beyond. It appears that in Ezra’s time, many of the “ten tribes” were still in Media, and while many of the Jews (from the southern kingdom) who had been carried captive into Babylon and Media returned to Jerusalem with Ezra, the ten tribes remained in Media. It appears that Josephus believed that many members of the Ten Tribes had remained “beyond Euphrates” with preserved identity at the time of his writing in the first century AD.

There are some conflicts with the interpretation of Josephus’ statement as representing the proximity to of the ten tribes to the Euphrates in the first century that arise as we examine at other evidences. The writings of first-century Jerusalem rabbis like Rabbi Akiva demonstrate no Jewish awareness of the whereabouts of any of the “lost tribes” at that time. Many other “lost tribe” theories would have required an earlier and wider dispersion of the tribes (such as the Germanic “sound shifts” that occurred within several centuries of the Northern Captivity), and most “lost tribe” scholars believe that most of the ten tribes had moved on or were thoroughly intermixed with local populations by the time of Josephus.

While a literal interpretation of this passage in Josephus is improbable, there are several interesting modern evidences to consider, even though these may represent the remnants of “ten tribe” influence either earlier dispersion or even a later influence following the first-century destruction of Jerusalem. The first is that of all of the ethnicities in the Middle East that have undergone DNA testing to date, the Kurds are the group most closely related to modern Jews (see http://www.israel-kurd.org/DNA%20Jew%20and%20Kurd.htm). Kurds and Armenians also have a relatively high prevalence of the “Cohen Modal Haplotype” found among Jewish Cohens today. This finding correlates well with the Bible account of the “Ten Tribes” being deported to the area of modern Kurdistan (much of which was once a part of “Greater Armenia”) and northern Iran and suggests the possibility that some or many of today’s Kurds and Armenians may be, at least in part, descendants of the ancient Israelite “Lost Tribes.”

What happened to the Lost Tribes after the captivity?

The path of the lost tribes following the captivity has been a source of much speculation, although little has been proven. The apocryphal book of 2 Esdras records:

“And whereas thou sawest that he gathered another peaceable people unto him. These are the Ten Tribes which were carried away captives out of their own land in the time of Oseas, the king, whom Salmanaser, the king of the Assyrians, took captive and crossed them beyond the river; so were they brought into another land, but they took this council to themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen and go forth onto a further country, where never man dwelt, that they might keep the statutes, which they never kept in their own land. And they entered in at the narrow passages of the river Euphrates, for the most High then showed them signs and stayed the springs of the flood till they were passed over; for through the country there was great journey, even of a year and a half, and the same region is called Arsareth” (2 Esdras 13:39-45).

Church Patriarch Hyrum G. Smith, Assistant Church Historian Elder Andrew Jenson, and others have cited the passage from 2 Esdras about a group from the Ten Tribes traveling through the area of present-day Armenia in the exodus from their captors. After citing this passage, Elder Jenson stated that “there are undoubtedly many things in Esdras that are just as reliable as things found in the scriptures that are called canonical.”

Many individuals have attempted to correlate “Arsareth” with a contemporary geographic location. Many such interpretations are highly speculative. A disingenuous explanation is given by Terry Blodgett in the article “Tracing the Dispersion” in the February 1994 Ensign:

“These narrow passages lead through a region called Ararat in Hebrew, and Urartu in Assyrian. Chwolson writes that Arsareth, mentioned in 4 Ezra, was another name for Ararat, a region extending to the northern shores of the Black Sea. A river at the northwest corner of the Black Sea was anciently named Sereth (now Siret), possibly preserving part of the name Arsareth. Since 'ar in Hebrew meant 'city,' it is probable that Arsareth was a city-the city of Sareth-located near the Sereth River northwest of the Black Sea.”

In an article published in the February 1994 Ensign, Terry Blodgett equates Arsareth with Ararat and places it northwest of the Black Sea, over a thousand miles from the historical Mount Ararat, based on a single reference from Russian scholar Daniel Chwolson at the turn of the twentieth century. Even Chwolson is clear that Arsareth is a region, but Blodgett attempts to demonstrate that it is a city. If his reasoning were correct, the region ought to be called Sareth, and the city Arsareth, and not the other way around.

My father David Stewart Sr., a professional linguist, has suggested that “Arsareth” – like “Armageddon” – may be a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, “har-sareth,” meaning “the Valley of the Remnants.” This explanation seems plausible, while leaving us – to the dismay of the dispersion-trackers – without a discrete geographic location to which we can look for the migration of the tribes.

The New Testament Epistle of James [Jacob in the original text] written in the first century A.D. addresses the twelve tribes of Israel: “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting” (James 1:1). If James’ letter was indeed written for members of the early Christian church in his own day, his address would suggest suggests that at least some members of the “Ten Tribes” had been proselytized by the first Christian missionaries. Christian traditions hold that after the resurrection of the Savior, the early apostles went to preach the gospel to the Gentiles and the “Lost Tribes.” Traditions claim that the apostle Andrew, brother of Peter, preached in Scythia; that Bartholomew preached in greater Armenia (modern Armenia, eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, northwestern Iran) and India; that Thomas preached in Parthia (including parts of modern Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq) and south India; that Jude preached in Persia, and that Simon Zelotes preached in Egypt and Persia (see “Fate of the Apostles” on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library site at http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN500APOSTLES%20FATE.htm )

Christ’s Visits to the “Lost Tribes”

In the Gospel of John, Christ promised to visit his other sheep:

“As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” (John 10:15-18)

Christ prophesies of his crucifixion and resurrection, and speaks of visiting his “other sheep” after mentioning that he will “lay down [his] life for the sheep.” The context strongly suggests that He is speaking of post-resurrection visits.

In the Book of Mormon, the resurrected Christ expounds:

“Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them: That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you. And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them. And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.” (3 Nephi 15:15-23)

In addition to visiting his disciples in Israel on several occasions after the resurrection, Christ visited his disciples on the American continent as documented in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi Chapters 9-28). He also visited other “Lost Tribes.” Additional world cultures have traditions consistent with visits of the resurrected Christ, which will be discussed in greater detail below.

Records of the Lost Tribes

The Book of Mormon notes that records were kept by other dispersed tribes of Israel, and prophesies that the chronicles of the “Lost Tribes” will oneday come to light:

“For behold, I shall speak unto the Jew and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it. And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews” (2 Nephi 29: 12-13).

The receipt of additional records is contingent upon us making full use of that which the Lord has already given us in the Book of Mormon: “And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them. And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.” (3 Nephi 26:8-11)

LDS Patriarchal Blessings

Each member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or LDS Church) who lives in a “stake,” an administrative equivalent of the Church similar to a “diocese” in other denominations, may receive a “patriarchal blessing” from the stake patriarch. This blessing provides personal instruction and guidance to the individual. Each patriarchal blessing also declares the lineage of the individual as a member of one of the tribes of Israel, whether (at least in part) a blood descendent or as a “Gentile adopted into the House of Israel.” A written copy of the blessing is given to the individual, and an identical copy is sent to the Church records department in Salt Lake City, Utah. Each member receives only one patriarchal blessing over the course of a lifetime. Such blessings are considered personal; therefore, the only information on lineage of LDS members through patriarchal blessings comes from internet visitors who have volunteered to share their specific lineage declarations and backgrounds with us. In analyzing this data, interesting patterns emerge. The consistent patterns of lineage that emerge are particularly remarkable considering that they are given by thousands of independent patriarchs across the LDS Church, and that patriarchs receive no training in determining lineage, nor have their been any official church statements or theologies on the location of members of any of the “lost tribes” besides Ephraim and Manasseh. We believe that such blessings are given under inspiration.

In a recent Ensign article, President Boyd K. Packer recently cited Elder John A. Widtsoe as follows:

“In giving a blessing the patriarch may declare our lineage – that is, that we are of Israel, therefore of the family of Abraham, and of a specific tribe of Jacob. In the great majority of cases, Latter-day Saints are of the tribe of Ephraim, the tribe to which has been committed the leadership of the Latter-day work. Whether this lineage is of blood or adoption does not matter…This is very important, for it is through the lineage of Abraham alone that the mighty blessings of the Lord for His children on earth are to be consummated…Since there are many bloodlines running in each of us, two members of one family might be declared as being of different tribes in Israel.” (Packer, Boyd K. “The Stake Patriarch.” Ensign, November 2002, pp.44-45)

Unusual situations

In the vast majority of cases, parents and children are designated as being from the same tribe, even though the patriarch usually has no knowledge of the parents’ lineage. However, there are some cases where parents are of one tribe and a child may be declared to be of a different tribal lineage. While the purpose of this paper is not to explore the genetics of the transmission of tribal lineage, it is sufficient to say some individuals may have some genetic influence from more than one tribe, although only one tribe is declared as primary in each patriarchal blessing. There may also be dominant and recessive traits associated with lineage. When mixed lineage is present, lineage of Ephraim and Manasseh frequently appear to be dominant. For example, most full-blooded Irish members are of the tribe of Dan, while the overwhelming preponderance of those of mixed Irish ancestry – Irish-American, Irish-Scottish, Irish-English, etc. – are of the tribe of Ephraim, not because they have no ancestry from Dan, but because the lineage of Ephraim appears to be dominant in most (but not all) cases where it is present. This concept of dominant and recessive inheritance may explain at least in part why there are so many LDS members of the lineage of Ephraim and Manasseh.

Here are a few cases where a child is declared to have tribal lineage different from the primary tribe of his or her parents or siblings:

“I am from the tribe of Benjamin, I am also Mexican; I currently live in California. I am the oldest of six. I am only one with the patriarchal blessing, so I don't know if any one else in my family is from this tribe yet. My parents are from Manasseh.” pepo (at) mexico. Com

“My patriarchal blessing declares me of the tribe of Benjamin. I am a Caucasian American who is of English/Scottish/Irish/Dutch ancestry. All of my 6 siblings' patriarchal blessings, as well as my mother's, declare them from the tribe of Ephraim.” Anonymous

“My own father is the only person in his family of 10 siblings and then also of his 4 children to be the only one from the tribe of Manasseh, and his lineage is English and Danish. He has no Lamanite blood in him.” Kelly R.

“My mother is a Cherokee Indian woman and my father is Spanish / Puerto Rican are both of the tribe Ephraim as well as my oldest brother. My middle brother and I, however, are of the lineage of Manasseh. rcb256 (at) bankrcb. net

Some patriarchal blessings designate lineage from Joseph, without specifying the tribe of Ephraim or Manasseh:

“My patriarchal blessing says I am a descendant of Joseph. All the while I thought it was because of my mixed ancestry. Many of the members in my former ward were of the tribe of Manasseh.” Yuko Takei

“My wife's blessing [she is native Japanese] mentions only Joseph, without going into whether it is Ephraim or Manasseh.” Bill Lewis

A few patriarchal blessings specifically mention mixed lineage. (i.e. primarily of the tribe of Asher but with some lineage from the tribe of Ephraim as well), although it is likely that such mixed lineage exists in many cases in which it is not mentioned.

Some members are adopted into the House of Israel, but are not assigned to a tribe in their lineage:

“I am Japanese American with ancestry going back to Hiroshima, Japan. I am third generation in the USA. My patriarchal blessing does not give a lineage, only that I am adopted into the House of Abraham. What does this mean? At least two other patriarchs have told me to let the matter rest as is.” (jeddoi (at) deseretonline. com)

Jewish beliefs about the “Lost Tribes”

What of the “Lost Tribes?” Many Jews believe that the Lost Tribes will never return. I asked two Orthodox rabbis about the “Lost Tribes,” but they said they were not familiar with this topic. Below is a reply from a conservative Jewish Rabbi at allexperts.com.

Dear David, What a pleasure to have such a well-written and documented questions! Unfortunately, I don't have the documents you need and I don't know even whether they exist. A great deal has been written and speculated about the “missing” Ten Tribes. Although I would prefer to read more in real depth by academic scholarship, since you ask, I personally don't believe that the Khazars, or any of the proposed groups are the “missing” Ten Tribes. The Assyrians had a policy which they implemented effectively: exchange populations thoroughly among all the nations which are conquered to prevent anyone living in their own community and prevent any large clusters of conquered peoples to be together - thus effectively halting any hope on the part of exiles for an effective revolution. The tribes of the north disappeared from history - not at all unlike countless other nations and cultures about which we still don't even know they existed. Best wishes, Rabbi Dov”

Linguistic Evidences of the Dispersion

In an article entitled “Tracing the Dispersion,” Terry Blodgett, a professor of language and linguistics at Southern Utah University, presents some fascinating evidence for a Hebraic sound shift in the Germanic languages with a temporal relationship to the period following the Northern Captivity in the 8^th century B.C. and again following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (Blodgett, Terry M. “Tracing the Dispersion.” Ensign. February 1994. http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20february%201994.htm/tracing%20the%20dispersion.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0 ). Blodgett is a German/Hebrew linguist, not an ethnohistorian, and presents a number of speculations with regard to place names and tribe names which are obviously untenable to anyone with a knowledge of Eastern European history and culture. He also seems to be unaware of the Khazars, Turkic proselytes to Judaism who lived in what is now Eastern Ukraine and southern Russia, the Karaites, and Jewish diaspora communities (who may be responsible for many of the Hebraic-type inscriptions found in this region), and of the Muslim origin (through Ottoman Turks) of the names of the cities Izmael and Isak in the Bessarabian region of Ukraine. While the article demonstrates a quickness to speculate based on superficial similarities far beyond the realm of the author’s expertise, the portion of the article that deals with the Germanic sound shifts presents groundbreaking insight. Reminding us that the Northern captivity was complete by 721 BC, He writes:

In Europe, the centuries following 700 B.C. were marked by tremendous outside influence, and language was profoundly affected. During the period between 700 and 400 B.C., numerous languages in Europe underwent major pronunciation changes and absorbed new vocabulary. This was particularly true of the Celtic languages, which were originally spoken throughout Europe (700-300 B.C.) but gradually became more concentrated in western Europe and Britain, and of the Germanic languages, which were spoken in central and northern Europe and Scandinavia and eventually in England. The gradual evolving of the sounds that make up words in a language, particularly when two languages merge, is known by linguists as a sound shift. The well-known pronunciation changes of the period of time between 700 and 400 B.C. have been called the Germanic Sound Shift, because they were the most pronounced and systematic in the Germanic languages, which include English, Dutch, German, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic. Also during this same time period, the total vocabulary in the Germanic languages increased by as much as one-third…For many years, the peculiarities in the Germanic languages kept linguists from recognizing that the Germanic languages belonged to the Indo-European group. However, early in the nineteenth century, two linguists—Rasmus Rask from Denmark (1818) and Jakob Grimm from Germany (1819-22)—showed that the Germanic languages were indeed part of the Indo-European family but that their differences in pronunciation were caused by a systematic shift in the sound of two groups of consonants—[p, t, k] and [b, d, g].

At the time of the sound shift, the pronunciation of these six consonants was changed to [ph, th, kh] and [bh, dh, gh], respectively. These new sounds were usually represented in writing by the letters f, th, h (x or ch) and b (v), d (th), g (gh). For example, by applying the rules of the sound shift to the Indo-European te puk—replacing the t, p, and k with th, f, and x—we recognize the English words the fox. Now the relationship between the Indo-European word pater and the English word father becomes more recognizable.

Linguists generally agree that these changes began taking place sometime after 700 B.C., and that the influence causing the sound shift continued to affect the Germanic dialects for several centuries, at least until 400 B.C. and possibly as late as the Christian Era. Unfortunately, scholars have not been able to agree upon what caused these changes or where the original homeland of the peoples may have been. Scholars have traced them to the Black Sea area, and to the Caucasus Mountains, but research did not trace them beyond there, because the scholars did not know whether that had been the people’s first homeland or they had come from the east or south of that point.

He further introduces evidence that an influx of Hebrew-speaking people sometime after the ten tribes were carried away by the Assyrians would explain the major sound shift dividing the Germanic tongues from other Indo-European languages:

My research took me to the Middle East, and it was there that I found a likely cause for the sound shift—the Hebrew language. The first thing I noticed was that Hebrew shifted the same six consonants that were shifted in Germanic—[p, t, k] and [b, d, g]. In ancient Hebrew, these consonants carried a dual pronunciation. Often, they did not shift, but when they began a syllable that was preceded by a long vowel, or ended a syllable, then [p, t, k] and [b, d, g] shifted to the sounds [ph, th, kh] and [bh, dh, gh]. Thus, the Hebrew word for “Spain,” separad, was pronounced sepharadh, and the word for “sign,” spelled ‘ot, was pronounced ‘oth. In 700 B.C., this sound shift was still functional in Hebrew and would have been part of any impact that migrating Israelites would have had on other languages. The fact that the same consonants were involved in similar sound shifts in both Hebrew and Germanic dialects at about the same time is significant. Yet even more significant is that the sounds [ph, th, kh] and [bh, dh, gh], so prevalent in Hebrew, did not exist in Germanic before the sound shift occurred.

Professor Blodgett presents further evidence for an ancient Hebrew origin of the Germanic sound shift, demonstrating evidence of Hebraic influence on pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary:

The case for a Hebrew influence on Germanic is further strengthened by a close comparison of the two languages, and particularly of the changes that developed in Germanic following the Assyrian captivity of Israel. The changes fall generally into three categories: pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary.

1. Pronunciation. In addition to the similar sound shifts just described, there were other sounds common to both Hebrew and Germanic that did not generally appear in the Indo-European languages. For example, when Hebrew and Germanic consonants appeared between vowels, they normally doubled if the preceding vowel was short. This doubling of consonants, referred to as gemination, became a characteristic feature of Germanic but not of other Indo-European languages. In this way, Indo-European media became Old English middel and modern English middle. Almost half of the Hebrew verb conjugations required doubling the consonant and substituting a shortened vowel preceding the consonant. Compare Hebrew shabar (“to break”) and the related Hebrew form shibber (“to shatter”). Likewise, almost half of the Germanic verbs doubled the middle consonant and substituted a shortened preceding vowel: Indo-European sad- and bad- became settan (“set”) and biddan (“bid”) in Old English.

2. Grammar. At the time of the Germanic Sound Shift, the Germanic dialects experienced a sharp reduction in their number of grammatical cases, making Germanic more like Hebrew. As in English, the case (or form) of a noun, pronoun, or adjective in a Germanic language indicated its grammatical relation to other words in a sentence. At the time of the Germanic Sound Shift, the Germanic dialects immediately reduced the number of possible cases for a word from eight to four (as in modern German) and eventually to three (as in English, Spanish, and French). These were the same three cases (with possible remnants of a fourth) that Hebrew used before the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities—nominative case (indicating a word is the subject of a sentence), accusative case (indicating a word is the object of a verb or preposition), and genitive case (used to indicate a word in the possessive form). Indo-European had six verb tenses. Hebrew, on the other hand, contained only two tenses (or aspects), dealing with actions either completed or not completed. Germanic, likewise, reduced its number of tenses to two—past and present. The other tenses in modern Germanic languages have developed out of combinations of these two original tenses. Verb forms in the two language groups also contain similarities. The Hebrew verb kom, kam, kum, yikom (“to arise, come forth”), for example, compares favorably with modern English come and came, Old English cuman, and German kommen, kam, gekommen (“to come forth, arrive, arise”).

3. Vocabulary. Perhaps the most convincing similarity between Hebrew and Germanic lies in their shared vocabularies. Linguists recognize that about one-third of all Germanic vocabulary is not Indo-European in origin. These words can be traced back to the Proto-Germanic period of 700-100 B.C., but not beyond. Significantly, these are the words that compare favorably in both form and meaning with Hebrew vocabulary. Once a formula was developed for comparing Germanic and Hebrew vocabulary, the number of similar words identifiable in both languages quickly reached into the thousands.

According to this formula, words brought into Germanic after 700 B.C. had a tendency to modify their spelling in three ways: First, in most Germanic dialects, the words changed in spelling according to the sound shift. Hebrew, on the other hand, changed only in pronunciation; spelling remained the same. For example, Hebrew parah (“to bear oneself along swiftly, travel”) remained parah when written, but was pronounced [fara] if it was preceded by a closely associated long vowel. With that in mind, it is easy to recognize the same word in Old Norse and Old Frisian (a dialect in the Netherlands): fara (“to travel, move swiftly”). Second, the vowels in the initial syllables were frequently dropped in written Germanic forms because Hebrew words usually carried the accent on the last syllable. Compare Hebrew daraq and English drag. Occasionally, if the initial consonant was weak, the entire syllable dropped out, as in Hebrew walad (“male offspring, son”) and English lad, and in Hebrew nafal (“to fall”) and English fall. Third, Hebrew used a tonal accent (a vocal emphasis featuring a tone or sound in part of a word) rather than a stress accent (a vocal emphasis featuring increased volume in speaking part of a word), but this changed to a stress accent in the Germanic dialects. However, the effects of the Hebrew tonal accent are evident in Germanic. The Hebrew tone, which usually appeared in the final syllable, was often represented in written Germanic by one of four tonal letters—l, m, n, or r. Compare Hebrew satat (“to place, found, base, begin”) with English start (r represents the Hebrew tone), and Hebrew parak (“to be free, to liberate”) with English frank (“free; free speech”—in which p was shifted to f, the unaccented a was deleted, and n was added for the Hebrew tone).

Biblical Hebrew contained relatively few root words—originally only a few hundred—but from these roots, words were formed in great variety. Most of these formations were made by exchanging vowels, adding prefixes or suffixes, and doubling consonants according to certain rules. Literally thousands of words similar to these roots, and to the multiple forms that developed out of these roots, appeared in Germanic dialects between 700 and 400 B.C.

Blodgett notes a further sound shift in the Germanic languages in the centuries following the final dispersion of the Palestinian Jews following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The first known historical evidence of Jewish communities in northern Europe is believed to be Constantine’s summon of the Cologne Jews in 321 AD, and by 750 AD, many Jews were living in Mainz, Worms, Cologne, other Rhineland cities, and northern France. While this second or “high German” sound shift involves descendants of Judah rather than members of the “Lost Tribes,” it reinforces the linguistic impact of known Jewish diaspora communities on their host cultures:

About a thousand years after the first sound shift, the Germanic dialects in northern Italy, Switzerland, Austria, and southern Germany began a second phonetic change involving the same six consonants. Beginning in the south about A.D. 450, this second sound shift, referred to as the High German Sound Shift (since it originated in the highlands of the Alps), spread northward into Switzerland and Austria. By A.D. 750, it had spread to the dialects of southern Germany. This High German dialect continued to grow in popularity (in the sixteenth century Martin Luther used it in his translation of the Bible) until it eventually became the standard form of German. The major difference between the Germanic Sound Shift of 700-400 B.C. and the High German Sound Shift of A.D. 450-750 was that [t], which shifted to [th] in the first sound shift, shifted consistently to [s] in the second one. This caused the word water, for example, to be pronounced wasser, and white to be pronounced weiss. This shift of [t] to [s] is an important clue to the source of influence for this second sound shift in southern Germanic territory. It leads us, once again, to the Middle East—but this time to the Aramaic language.

Jews were speaking Aramaic in A.D. 70 when the Romans overran Jerusalem and sent thousands of Jews fleeing Palestine. During the following years, many of these Aramaic-speaking Jews made their way northward into Europe. The Christianized Jews, especially, sought the refuge of the Italian Alps, and by A.D. 450, they had established a sizable population there. During the following centuries they gradually spread northward into Switzerland, Austria, and Germany. Historians have documented these migrations well, but they have failed to recognize the influence of these people’s language on the languages they encountered. Aramaic had originally employed a sound shift identical to the Hebrew sound shift, but by 500 B.C. when the Jews learned it, the language had made a small but significant change in its pronunciation. Aramaic began shifting [t] to [s] rather than to [th], as both Hebrew and Aramaic had done previously. This is also the characteristic difference between the first Germanic Sound Shift of 700-400 B.C. and the High German Sound Shift of A.D. 450-750. For example, in comparing the Hebrew/Aramaic changes with the first and second sound shifts, we note that the Jews at the time of their dispersion pronounced, for example, the Hebrew words bayit (“house”) as bayis and gerit (from gerah “roughage, grits”) as garis. By comparison, the German word for grit (griot, “groats”) made a similar change to grioz, then to griess, during the High German Sound Shift. These changes suggest the influence of Aramaic in the southern Germanic dialects. Additional Hebrew vocabulary was added to the southern German, Austrian, and Swiss dialects during this later period (compare Hebrew pered, “beast of burden,” with German Pferd, “horse”).

Linguistic evidence of a Hebraic influence is noted in some other languages, including Japanese. In the article “Israelites came to Ancient Japan” (http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracame.htm), Japanese Christian author Arimasa Kubo writes:

“Joseph Eidelberg, a Jew who once came to Japan and remained for years at a Japanese Shinto shrine, wrote a book entitled ‘The Japanese and the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.’ He wrote that many Japanese words originated from ancient Hebrew… The name of the priest, ‘Koyane,’ sounds close to a Hebrew word, ‘kohen,’ which means, ‘a priest.’ Eidelberg showed many other examples of Japanese words (several thousand) which appeared to have a Hebrew origin. This does not appear to be accidental. In ancient Japanese folk songs, many words appear that are not understandable as Japanese. Dr. Eiji Kawamorita considered that many of them are Hebrew. A Japanese folk song in Kumamoto prefecture is sung, ‘Hallelujah, haliya, haliya, tohse, Yahweh, Yahweh, yoitonnah...’ This also sounds as if it is Hebrew.”

A PBS feature article notes:

“Daber: in Hebrew, to speak. Daberu: Japanese for chatting. Goi: a non-Hebrew or foreigner. Gai'Jeen: prefix for a foreigner, a non-Japanese. Kor: cold in Hebrew. Koru: to freeze in Japanese. Knesset: Parliament in Hebrew. Kensei: Constitutional government in Japanese. These are among the thousands of words and names of places with no real etymological meaning in Japanese. And they all correspond with Hebrew words. (“Where are the Ten Lost Tribes,” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/losttribes3.html)

If these linguistic shifts do in fact represent evidences of the Israelite tribes, they provide us with several useful pieces of information. In the case of both the Germanic sound shift and the Japanese language findings, the linguistic shift appears to have occurred with the influx of an Israelite group into an existing population during a time period consistent with the Hebraic dispersion. Therefore, we can largely rule out simplistic theories that these ethnicities represent pure Israelite groups. We also have significant ancient historical and archaelogical data pointing to the existence of preexisting non-Israelite people-groups as well as ongoing migrations into these groups from a variety of sources. This data suggests that the Israelite influx into such groups was large enough to have a major impact upon the existing people-groups, but not large enough to overwhelm them or replace them wholesale.

Some minor Hebraic influence has been claimed for a variety of other languages. Specific annotations are made in the text below.

Molecular Genealogy and the Tribes of Israel

The best online resource I have seen on Jewish/Israelite DNA research is Kevin Brook’s Khazaria.com genetics pages at http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html and http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-cohen-levite.html . Only a brief overview of some points relative to the study of the “lost tribes” will be given here.

The recent explosion of molecular DNA data has led to a considerable increase in knowledge about our roots. However, some individuals have draw and widely publicized conclusions far beyond those validated by the existing data. Therefore the claims of LDS critics Simon Southerton, Thomas Murphy, and others that DNA evidence “disproves” traditional LDS teachings that ancient Israelites were the principle ancestors of the ancient Mesoamericans, are highly premature. In reviewing DNA evidence, The limitations of current knowledge must be kept in mind. The ethnohistory of the genetic markers assayed for remain largely unknown, and many scholars believe that most of the genes studied identified in modern Jewish populations were introduced only after the Jewish diaspora. Many researchers have noted that the existing data generates more questions than answers and, so far, fails to provide a reliable method of determining the Israelite ancestry of either individuals or groups. In light of these considerable limitations, researchers and authors caution:

"Jewish communities have little in common on their mitochondrial side...The only Jewish subgroup that does show some homogeneity -- descendants of the Cohanim, or priestly class -- makes up only about 2 percent of the Jewish population. Even within the Cohanim, and certainly within the rest of the Jewish people, there's a vast amount of genetic variation that simply contradicts MacDonald's most basic assertion that Jewish genetic sameness is a sign that Judaism is an evolutionary group strategy" (Nicholas Wade. "In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots." The New York Times (May 14, 2002): F1 (col. 1). http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/14/science/social/14GENE.html )

"Studies of human genetic diversity have barely begun. Yet the fashion for genetic ancestry testing is booming.... Buoyed by the hype, the private sector has been moving in. Other groups, such as Jews, are now being targeted. This despite the fact that Jewish communities have little in common on their mitochondrial side - the maternal line down which Judaism is traditionally inherited. It's the male side that shows common ancestry between different Jewish communities - so, of course, that's what the geneticists focus on." (Martin Richards. "Beware the gene genies." The Guardian. 21 February 2003. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,899835,00.htm )

“Though there are many deleterious versions of genes shared within the Ashkenazic community, there are no DNA sequences common to all Jews and absent from all non-Jews. There is nothing in the human genome that makes or diagnoses a person as a Jew." Robert Pollack. "The Fallacy of Biological Judaism." Forward (March 7, 2003): Op-Ed section. http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.03.07/oped4.html

Modern Jewish populations, genetic tests demonstrate vast heterogeneity, and cannot reliably identify individuals – or even some communities – as Jewish. These genes are also shared by many non-Jewish individuals. The assumption that haplotype proportions of today’s Jewish populations can be used as a definitive “test” of Israelite lineage is doubtful, given the considerable variation in existing communities, a history of known intermixing (even if at a low rate), and lack of any scientific validation that the DNA of today’s Jewish populations accurately represents that of ancient Israel. With only relative references after 2600-2700 years of diaspora without any clear “gold standard” with regard to the genetics of ancient Israelite populations, modern DNA data may suggest some interesting possibilities, although it so far proves little about who does or does not have ancient Israelite lineage.

If these markers are indeterminate among many existing Jewish populations, it is evident that they cannot be reliably applied to “lost tribe” populations as a valid indicator of Israelite lineage.

Dr. Trent Stephens uses his own family history to demonstrate some of the challenges in detecting genes of ancient ancestors through modern molecular biology:

Ten generations separate me from this George Buchanan, a Presbyterian patriot or Scottish rebel, depending on which side of the bridge you stood….the probability of my inheriting any one of George Buchanan's chromosomes is 44 in 45,056, or 1 in 1,024. Ten more generations back along the Buchanan line takes me to Walter, 11th laird of Buchanan, born in 1338. The probability of my inheriting any one allele or chromosome from Walter is 1 in 1,048,576. Ten more generations back brings me to Anselan Buey O'Kyan, 1st laird of Buchanan, who was born in Ireland in a.d. 980. He came to Scotland to escape the Viking raids in Ireland, then helped Malcolm II, king of Scotland, fight against the Vikings in Scotland. (Some of the Vikings he fought against may have also been my ancestors because I am descended, through several lines, from the Normans.) For his service to the king, Anselan was given, in a.d. 1016, the hand of Dennistoun, heiress to the Buchanan lands on the east bank of Loch Lomen. My chances of inheriting an allele or chromosome from Anselan or Dennistoun, 30 generations and 1,000 years ago, is 1 in 10,737,417,000, about as much chance as winning the lottery! The Buchanan family is neither on my direct paternal line nor on my direct maternal line, so the chance of finding any genetic fingerprint linking me to Anselan Buey O'Kyan is about 1 in 11 billion. The chance of finding a genetic fingerprint linking me to Walter Buchanan is 1 in 1 million; and to George Buchanan, 10 generations and a little more than 300 years ago, is 1 in 1,000. Those are not good odds if I am trying to identify genetic connections to even the most recent of these ancestors. Do all these data indicate that the lairds of Buchanan are not my ancestors? Not at all! I am a direct lineal descendent of Anselan Buey O'Kyan as much as I am from any other of my ancestors of that era. My genealogy can be traced back, in this one line, to Anselan Buey O'Kyan, and for seven more generations beyond, to Fargallus, who was born in Ireland in a.d. 680. These lines are well established and documented, with dates and places. There is less than 1 chance in 10 billion, however, that my descent from Anselan can be confirmed genetically. (Meldrum, D. Jeffrey and Trent D. Stephens, “Who Are the Children of Lehi?" Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003. http://www.lds.org/newsroom/files/Stephens_Meldrum_DNA.pdf )

With such difficulties in attempting to genetically confirm descent from an ancestor who lived only in the relatively recent past, one can appreciate the difficulty or even impossibility of finding conclusive genetic traces of Israelite tribes deported from the Holy Land over 2700 years ago in mixed populations throughout the world. Those who claim that DNA tests have “disproven” Book of Mormon teachings of Israelite lineage of ancient Mesoamericans demonstrate a lack of understanding of the limitations of the existing science.

What about the Mongolian/Native American DNA Connection?

For a full treatment of Book of Mormon DNA issues, the reader is directed to my article “DNA and the Book of Mormon” at http://www.cumorah.com/bookofmormondna.html . All of the studies alluded to in this section are referenced in full and discussed in that article.

Ancient AmerIndian DNA markers do closely match those of modern indigenous AmerIndians, so we can be confident that the ancient inhabitants of the Americas are in fact the ancestors of the modern AmerIndians. On the Asian side, things are more problematic. I am aware of no published studies of ancient DNA, and certainly nothing 2600+ years old (nothing predating either the captivity of the Lost Tribes or Lehi's voyage) among the Mongolians and South Siberians that share the most genetic similarity with modern Amerindians. Siberia/Mongolia have few or no real natural barriers, and ethnographers have documented the movement of literally hundreds of people-groups across this area, and so it seems unrealistically simplistic to believe that Siberian/Mongolian DNA before the Israelite dispersion of Israel was the same as today and had all of the sequences shared between modern Amerindians and modern Siberians/Mongolians. Modern central Chinese also share many of these haplotypes, although at a lower frequency.

There are a couple of data points that may suggest that ancient Central Asian DNA was probably not like modern DNA. The most ancient study I am aware of Linzi (central) Chinese, 500 BC (2500 years ago) found that the ancient DNA was completely outside of modern Far Eastern regional haplotype groups and bear almost no genetic relationship to modern Chinese. It also