Jeremiah, Tephi, Eochaid, Lia-Phail

LIA-PHAIL, THE STONE OF DESTINY

“And, behold, the ‘Lord’ stood above it, and said, I am the ‘Lord God’ of Abraham thy Father, and the ‘God’ of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.” - Genesis 28:13-15, 18.

NEXT,(1) With respect to the Stone of Destiny, it is in the Legend itself, attached to it, that we have the highest evidence of a priestly presence in the inaugurator of the Stone; and, herein, of the official and providential inauguration of the Seed of David on the Throne of Israel, to wield the Sceptre under the Standard of Judah, according to the intimation in the last words of the tenth verse of the first chapter of the book of Jeremiah; - for he had “to build and to plant,” a kingdom.

The Stone came from the East; - Wherever it be, a Sceptre is to be with it; - And it is to return to the East, whence it came.

But what is this Stone, to which this important Legend is attached?

It is that Eastern, Hebraish, MATERIAL FACT, already spoken of, and which is the first, there enumerated, of the Signs of Judah in England.

Where is it?

This Stone is in the Coronation Throne - Seat of the Kings of England. [JML: Now returned to Scotland]. It is called by some, THE STONE of DESTINY; in Irish, LIA-FAIL; and by the English, JACOB’S PILLOW

Why is it where it is?

In his Essay on Certain Monuments of Antiquity, Mr. Weaver says, p. 118, “It appears that the Irish kings, from very ancient times until A.D. 513, were crowned upon a particular sacred stone, called ‘Liath Fail,’ ‘the Stone of Destiny;’ that so, also, were the Scottish kings until the year 1296; when Edward I of England brought it here: and it is a curious fact, that this stone has not only remained in England until now, and is existing still under the Coronation-Chair of our British Sovereigns in Westminster Abbey, [This article was written before the Stone was returned by John Major - Ed] but that all our Kings, from James I, have been crowned in that Chair.”

This being a fact so curious, we shall quote its particulars in a note, as taken from Toland, in his History of the Druids (pp. 137-9), and from Mr. Edward O’Reilly, author of the Irish Dictionary in his letter to Sir William Betham, and inserted in his Irish Antiquarian Researches.

Toland’s statement is this: ‘The Fatal Stone (Liag fail), so called, was the stone on which the supreme kings of Ireland used to be inaugurated, in times of heathenism, on the hill of Tarah; it was superstitiously sent to confirm the Irish colony in the North of Great Britain, where it continued as the Coronation-Seat of the Scottish Kings ever since Christianity; till, in the year 1300, Edward I of England brought it from Scone, placing it under the Coronation Chair at Westminster, and there it still continues. I had almost forgot to tell you, that it is now called by the vulgar, Jacob’s Stone, as if this had been Jacob’s Pillow at Bethel.’

So far Toland. Now we extract O’Reilly’s account. Speaking of ‘Leath Fail’ he says:

“All our Irish historical writers, ancient and modern, tell us that it was a large stone of extraordinary virtue brought into Ireland; that the monarchs of Ireland, from A.M. 2764 [see later for correction of this date] to A.D. 513, were all inaugurated on the Lia Fail, which, until that period, was kept at Tara in Meath, the chief seat of the Irish monarchs. At this last-mentioned period, Muisceortagh (Murkertagh) reigned; Fergus, his brother, having established for himself a kingdom in Alba, or, as it has been since called, Scotland, procured from his brother the Lia Fail, that on it he might, with the greater solemnity, be inaugurated king over his new possession. The Stone was never returned to Ireland, but remained in Scotland; and each succeeding king of Scotland was crowned thereon until Edward I of England invaded that country, A.D. 1296, and carried off into his own country the Scottish regalia, among which was the Lia Fail. From that period to the present day it has remained in England; and ever since the reign of James I has continued to serve the purpose for which it was so long used in Ireland and Scotland; the kings of England from his time down to the present sovereign having been crowned on it.”

With respect to the Stone, we have seen that the date assigned for the presence of Lia Fail in Ireland, viz. advent of the Ollam Fola is B.C. 600. Jerusalem was destroyed and the great fact of the Captivity took place, B.C. 602. “If then the Stone which we have, be Jacob’s Pillow, it must have been conveyed to Ireland, certainly not before the time of Jeremiah; but most probably by him, and for some purpose. We set about now:

FIRST, to prove; that he might have taken it;

SECOND, we ask what his object would have been in taking it out of the East at all?

THIRDLY we have to show, that, whoever took it, it was set up under such attendant circumstances at Tara, as fit none but a man whose pretensions and authority were such as were those pertaining to Jeremiah;

FOURTHLY, accompanied, as he might have been, by some member of the Family of David. A series of evidence which seems only to want the confirmation, the direct assertion furnished by tradition, that he was, personally, in Ireland, to establish firmly the fact that, Jeremiah having been himself in Ireland, he did, therefore, take with him the Stone, and set it up as a Pillar of Witness, as had been done by it aforetime, and pronounce a blessing upon it. The substance of this has been handed down to posterity, in the very terms of the legend.

If Jeremiah took the Stone, all the marvels about Tara, its Eastern Princess, its Judge, and Mysterious Priest, and the Law, are not only solved, but are necessary events. If it be Jacob’s Pillow, and set up by Jeremiah, there is sense in the legend; otherwise, it is an absurdity, and something worse.

1) The prophet might have taken the stone

In the year 602 B.C. Jerusalem was taken by king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon; and, so considerable a portion of the people was carried away, that, after the raid, made upon the remnant left behind, by Ishmael the son of Nethaniah (Jeremiah 41), and the subsequent migration of the remains of the remnant, the place was (Jeremiah 43:7) almost entirely deserted. (Jeremiah 41:10, 43:4-7)

On the departure of the main body for Babylon, the prophet Jeremiah was allowed the option, by the monarch, to go to Babylon (Jeremiah 40:4), or to remain behind (Jeremiah 39:12,40:4). For reasons best known to himself (Jeremiah 40:6), he decided to remain at Jerusalem, i.e., at Mizpah; and he made use of this licence to secure those invaluable endowments of the first temple, which, if lost, could never be replaced. Accordingly, we read in 2 Maccabees, 2:4-7,

“It was also contained in the same writing, that the prophet, being warned of God, commanded the Tabernacle and the Ark to go with him, as he went forth into the mountain, where Moses climbed up, and saw the heritage of God. And when Jeremiah came thither, he found an hollow cave, wherein he laid the tabernacle, and the ark, and the altar of incense, and so stopped the door. And some of those that followed him came to mark the way, but they could not find it. Which, when Jeremiah perceived, he blamed them, saying, As for that place, it shall be unknown until the time that ‘God’ gather His people again together, and receive them unto mercy.”

One of the less known sources about the Temple Vessels is the Sefer HaHashMonaim. There it is written explicitly that the prophet Yirmiyahu hid the First Temple Vessels, the Ark, and the Altar “on the mountain that Moshe Rabeinu saw.” This definition has been the subject of investigation for hundreds of years, since Moshe Rabeinu, who saw the mountain, did not write or hint it in the Torah from Prof. James Tabor.

At this time Jacob’s Pillow was an object of hardly less veneration, in Jerusalem, than the miraculous furniture in the Temple: and, as we find that in the subsequent capture of Jerusalem by the Caliph Omar, in his veneration for the stone shown to him by the patriarch as Jacob’s Pillow, he immediately ordered a mosque to be built over it, in honour of it (and which we know to have been a fictitious “pillow,” - for we have the true one) we have herein pointed out to us, with sufficient certainty, the place where the ante-captivity Jews had set up this National Stone; the sacred memento of the promises of national greatness, made to their father Jacob, when he dreamed his dream at Bethel.

We learn from Hosea that the temple of Bethel had come to be changed, in the language of prophetical denunciation, from Beth-el to the contemptuous name of Beth-aven, “The house of nought;” which would hardly have been the case, had “the Pillar of Witness” been the foundation of its altar.

Was, then, Jeremiah the man, - it having been shown that he did care for one set of Holy Things, - to disregard the existence, or be careless, of this other Holy Thing? For it was a consecrated thing; and it lay deep, so to speak, in the fundamental traditions of the Empire.

The Stone, then, being a conspicuous object among the holy things belonging to the holy city, we may be sure that the prophet no more neglected to take care of and for it, than he did for the things which he set in the cave. In some such cave, therefore, or in some other safe place, he doubtless secreted it; possibly in the same in which Baruch had secreted by burying in an earthen vessel, “The Evidences” of his purchase (Jeremiah 32:14). In such case, therefore, he would be able to lay his hands upon it readily, when he returned to the Land of Judah, with the small number that escaped the sword in Egypt (Jeremiah 44:28). And when subsequently, on his arrival, be considered the duty that lay upon him, according to the injunctions of his first commission over the nations, “to plant and to build,” (Jeremiah 1:10) coupled with the impossibility of his doing so within the land of Judea, which was to be in bondage for seventy years, (Jeremiah 25:12) - and he himself was now fifty-six years old, [by computation] - and therefore felt the necessity of going thence, and that he had authority to do so; the absence of all the Jews of influence, and the fact of the authority he had with the Babylonish Lieutenant (Jeremiah 39:12), would make the removal of the cherished Stone to him a matter of no difficulty: whereas the Jews with him, and also the Babylonish officer, would have absolutely forbid its being removed by any other person but Jeremiah.

2) But what reason could the prophet Jeremiah have for desiring to remove this stone?

In proportion as was the veneration of the nation for this Stone, as a National Emblem, - one representing the destiny of the nation, - so might a man who had the intention, and felt the duty weighing upon him, to re-establish the Sceptre of Judah, towards the reunion of “the Two Families” of Israel, very well feel the necessity of being accompanied by such a National Monument; and, as his determination was to make flight by sea, for the hypothesis is that he came to an island, - to some distant land, there would be no hindrance to his carrying with him that, which would be an almost unbearable burden by land. The present form of the Stone indicates its having been reduced from its original shape (The stone is 26 inches long, 16.75 broad, and 10.5 thick; and a little broader at one end than at the other); possibly to make it manageable for its journey from Jerusalem to the sea-shore, under circumstances of difficulty.

3) The stone being found at Tara, in Ireland, and at the time that it was bound, as it were, to disappear from Judea, and the Legend attaching to it being what we know it to be, none but Jeremiah could have been the declarer of such a Legend.

Not alone because of the foregoing; but because no other person could have pronounced the legend concerning perpetuity and promise of return. For who could have been authorized to say such things, of any Stone? If any body but he had said any thing like this, at that time, it would have been nonsense if he did not believe what he said, or, blasphemy if he did: i.e., to prophesy without authority. But if Jeremiah said such words, they were not only the evidence of his perfect faith in his mission and pregnant with meaning, but strictly what he was well authorized to do. For his commission was, “to plant and to build.” What? Trees and Houses? No, but an Empire, on a foundation which should last, “until Shiloh, to whom the gathering of the people should be, should appear.” To the Jews the prophet had been sent as the minister of “God’s” judgment “to root out, to pluck up, and to destroy” their Polity for their multiplied iniquities; but he was, in the same decree, named as the messenger “to the nations” to proclaim the Power of ‘God’, and to make it manifest among, them by the re-establishing of the Sceptre of Judah (Jeremiah 1:10), and to confirm it with a blessing and a promise.

Furthermore, it must be asserted, that if the prophet Jeremiah pronounced the Legend, feeling authority to do so, we may be sure that the terms of it will be fulfilled. And hitherto are they not? “Frustration is for the Tokens of Liars,” but the ‘Lord’ “confirmeth the word of His servants, and performeth the counsel of His messengers.” - (Isaiah 44:25, 26)

If then the Legend be sound, which may be assumed, as having been spoken by one who had authority, which could be no other but Jeremiah; and the facts of the case; hitherto, are not inconsistent with its being so; - and if the fulfilment of the Legend be intended - and who will venture to say that it be not? - then the Stone must be the throne of the blood royal of Judah. That is to say:

4) The Prophet must have been accompanied by some member of the Family of David, in order to have made the prediction of possible realization.

For to a sceptre of what Stock could a Hebrew prophet promise continuance, until a return to the East, but to the sceptre of Judah? ... to a sceptre, of which Stock, to appear in the East in the promised SHILOH, as the Hebrew would very well know, uninterrupted dominion was promised. And how could a throne of David be re-established, but in the presence of those by whom a perpetuation of the race would be possible? Therefore, a man of the seed royal, or woman, must have been present, to make the promise, possible and reasonable.

But the kings and princes of the royal house had been all cut off., consequently none of them were there. “The king’s daughters” had not been cut off. They were manifestly in the Prophet’s company on his two forced journeys from Jerusalem; first (Jeremiah 41:10), with Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, towards Ammon; and last (Jeremiah 43:6), with Johanan the son of Kareah, to Taphnis in Egypt. When there against his will, the Prophet was commanded to escape from it, and promised safety in flight (Jeremiah 44:12-14), to return to Judea; and safety, consequently, to those with him, who should, in so escaping, obey the voice of the ‘Lord’ (Jeremiah 44:28; 1:19,15:20; 20:13).

“The king’s daughters,” therefore, would, for their own sakes, take care to be with him on his return to Judea. When there (Jeremiah 5:14), he had the opportunity of transporting thence, whithersoever he would, the Stone of Israel, the grand national relic, the ancient Pillar of Witness (Genesis 28:13-15, 18,22), even to whatever place he would be moved to proceed “to plant and to build” (Jeremiah 1:10) that kingdom, - i.e., to re-establish that kingdom of Israel (Jeremiah 33:24), whose restoration he had been commanded to foretell.

In Judea, it was not possible for Jeremiah to setup this resuscitated kingdom. It was to lie waste for seventy years; and the prophet was now, as we have seen, fifty-six years old. In Babylon it could not be. Neither in, nor under the protection of, Egypt could it be. Whither then was he to set about “to plant and to build” that which he had been ordained to help “to pluck up and destroy?” and set up again that Pillar of Witness, by which the Patriarch of old had handed down to the generations to come, the assurance of his Faith in the promises of ‘God?’ Did “the Isles of the Sea” suggest themselves as a likely place for sanctuary to that “righteous man in the East?” or were they suggested to him?

However that may be, the fact is very remarkable, that this Stone, this Pillar of Witness to the Truth of “God’s” Promise, and for the safety of which, it was the duty of the earnest prophet to provide, is found, later, in great repute and preservation, “in the utmost ends of the earth,” away in “the Islands of the Sea,” - the name by which our Islands are, to this day, known by “the dispersed of Judah;” and is, even yet, after 2400 years, still used for the same purpose for which it was then first set up in Ireland, just about the time that it disappeared in the East: and it is, to this day, guarded as the Nation’s greatest Treasure, by the nation which has charge of it, by the Constable of the National Fortress in the Heart of the Empire. And the Legend pertaining to it is as fresh as it was the day on which it was declared; namely, that it came from the East; that the blessing of ‘God’ is with it, even to the guaranteeing to its possessor, a Sceptre, and to his Dynasty an abiding continuance, until the time shall arrive when it is to go back to the East from whence it came. And the Token of the Utterer has not been yet frustrated!

Is then this Stone a Talisman? or are men to be taught to consider it such?

There is no doubt, but that, as well in Scotland as in Ireland, and even later, in England, this Stone has been held, superstitiously, to be the Palladium of the Empire. But when Jacob took the Stone on which he slept, did the Patriarch consider there was any particular virtue in the Stone which he set up as a Pillar of Witness? So neither do we believe that there is any particular virtue in the Coronation Stone. The Stone may or may not be Jacob’s Stone. I believe it is. It is more likely to be than not. But there is no necessity that it should be the identical Stone. What ‘God’ wants is not a Stone, but faith. Faith in the Homage of the Seed Royal to the Shiloh in the East, is more than the Identity of a Stone; and he who entertains that faith will bear all the brazen blasts of the infidel deniers of Providence, unscathed. Judah will be restored to Jerusalem [JML: written 1861 A.D.]; and to that fact future, the Legend of the English Stone is a perpetual witness. That belief is the palladium, not only of our Empire of this world, but the guarantee of every Christian’s, in that which is to come!(1)

Overview

Jacob used a stone for a pillow the night he wrestled with God. After God changed his name to Israel, he then used it as a pillar to mark the covenant he made with God. Tradition has it that the Stone was taken to Egypt, and later to the Promised Land when the Israelites came out of Egypt. Jacob’s Pillar Stone was to play a vital roll in the three overtumings of the throne of David.

The Stone remained in Jerusalem until after 586 B.C. when Jerusalem was destroyed, and it was taken by Jeremiah to Ireland with the daughter of Zedekiah. After this time, the Kings of Ireland would be crowned while seated upon the Pillar Stone of Jacob.

When the throne of David was overturned a second time to Scotland, the Stone was taken to Scotland by the first Scottish king, Fergus, in the ninth century, and placed at the ancient capital of Scone (pronounced Skoon). The Scottish kings were also crowned while seated upon it.

The Stone of Jacob was seized by King Edward I in 1296, and has been used in the coronation of every English monarch since. Queen Elizabeth II was crowned while sitting on the Coronation Chair containing the Stone.

Until recently, the Stone of Jacob (Israel) has sat under the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey, in silent testimony to the dual promises made by Almighty God to the descendants of Abraham. After 700 years at Westminster Abbey, the stone was recently returned to Scotland and is on display at Edinburgh Castle. It has remained with the descendants of Israel since the time of Jacob, and the Royal Seed of David have always been crowned upon it.

Symbol of sovereignty back in Scotland after 700 years

EDINBURGH, Scotland (AP)(2) With prayers, pipers and some political nuance, the legendary Stone of Scone was placed in its new home in Scotland on Saturday, seven centuries after it was stolen by an English king. “It’s back where it belongs in Scotland,” said Jean Livingstone, who stood with her seven year-old granddaughter in the crowd along Edinburgh’s Royal Mile as the stone rolled past on an army Land Rover.

Prince Andrew represented his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, at the ceremonies on the feast day of St Andrew, Scotland’s patron saint.

The rough-hewn block of gray sandstone, weighing 458 pounds, was the coronation seat of Scottish kings until it was carried away as war booty by King Edward I in 1296. The Stone of Scone (pronounced “skoon”) was placed under the coronation chair in Westminster Abbey, where it has been involved in all coronations since.

The stone will be placed on public view in Edinburgh Castle. Legend says that the stone originated in the Holy Land, and that the Biblical patriarch Jacob rested his head on it when he had his dream of a ladder reaching to heaven. “Today is like recovering a valued item that has been missing for a long time, like getting back a lost wedding ring,” said the Right. Rev John McIndoe, moderator of the general assembly of the Church of Scotland, who preached at a service in St. Giles Cathedral.

The government has said little about why it decided to return the stone, though Prime Minister John Major noted in his announcement in July that this was the 700th anniversary of the stone’s removal. Many Scots suspect the gesture was intended to shore up the governing Conservative Party’s dwindling support in Scotland.

“Basically people are glad to see the Stone returning,” said Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party, which wants independence for Scotland. The main opposition Labour party says that if it wins the next election, it will create a regional parliament for Scotland, but not grant it full independence.

FOOTNOTES

(1) From: England, the Remnant of Judah, and the Israel of Ephraim, written by F.R.A. Glover, M.A., Chaplain to the Consulate at Cologne. Published by Rivingtons, London, 1861. Based on research commenced in 1844.

(2) Lubbock Avalanche-Journal 1996



THE SLEEPING STONE

I stopped to call a taxi in the heart of Babylon.

At the pavement’s edge I stood - the traffic writhing on

Leftward to the Whitehall turning like a lustrous snake

Or rightward to Westminster Bridge, the southbound road to take,



There to pass proud Boadicea set towards the tower

Where Big Ben in his solemn grandeur booms the passing hour

As if to warn the seething crowds that Time brooks no de!ay

As he sifts the minutes of the unforgiving day.



While I across the street looked out towards the Abbey wall -

Afloat behind a spray of limpid light that seemed to fall

Veiling the secret features of the Abbey’s ancient face

That houses Jacob’s Bethel stone in its appointed place...

Where Israel’s holy treasure lies for every eye to see:

Safe in our keeping. This, the very Stone of Destiny.



The taxi came. Again we plunged into the turgid stream -

And glancing back, the Abbey seemed remote as in a dream.

Sculptured in its frozen calm it stood apart, alone,

Sharing with God the hidden knowledge of the sleeping stone.



Patience Strong

JEREMIAH IN IRELAND

PROOF FROM THE BIBLE AND THE IRISH ANNALS

By

John E Wall

ONE of the most beloved stories of traditional literature written by those who support the modern identity of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel is the story of the coming of the prophet Jeremiah to Ireland. According to this story shortly after c. 586 BCE when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, conquered Jerusalem, Jeremiah the prophet, accompanied by his scribe Baruch, and the daughters of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, fled that country and for a short time resided in Egypt. From there they took ship to Ireland, where one of the daughters married Eochaidh the high king (heremon or ard ri) of Ireland. A variation says that the marriage took place in Jerusalem. The royal couple governed the Emerald Isle from their capital at Tara in County Meath. Jeremiah, at that time an old man, was also reputed to have established a sort of ministerial training college at Tara. He became a revered figure in Irish legend.

Over the course of the centuries the royal line established at Tara was transferred from Ireland to Scotland to England where it survives today in the person of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. A wondrous stone, variously called the Stone of Destiny, Stone of Scone, or Coronation Stone, upon which Her Majesty and her predecessors on the thrones of the three kingdoms were crowned, thought to be the stone that the patriarch Jacob slept on at Bethel (Genesis 28:18-22) was also believed to have been brought to Ireland by Jeremiah.

It is claimed that the story of Jeremiah coming to Ireland can be found in the ancient annals, histories and other literature of the Irish, and indeed references to it abound in the works written by traditional Ten Tribes scholars, especially 19th- century writers. Yet rarely, if ever, do these writers point to any specific history in which this tale may be found, vague references to “Irish annals” usually being made. A few examples will suffice:

One authority states that “Irish historians are unanimous that about 580 B.C. there arrived in Ulster a notable man [Jeremiah], a patriarch or saint, accompanied by an Eastern princess, and a lesser person by the name of Simon Brach or Barech”.(I)

Further that, “Irish tradition tells us that Jeremiah married the princess Tamar Tephi to Eochaidh king of Ireland”.(2)

However, the historians are not named, nor is any particular tradition cited.

Another writer says that “The ancient records of Ireland bear ample testimony to this [Jeremiah’s coming to Ireland] as an historic fact, not only recording the event itself, but also supplying confirmatory evidence by giving the actual date or period of their arrival correctly”.(3)

Again, disappointingly, this author does not name the “ancient records” in which the Jeremiah story may be found; rather we read phrases such as, “the records conclude .. .“(4) and “The royal records state .. . “.(5)

He dates the coming of Jeremiah to Ireland at late in 583 BCE or early 582 BCE.

The closest that any writer comes to naming names is a contemporary author and archaeologist, E. Raymond Capt. In his book, Jacob’s Pillar: A Biblical Historical Study, Capt makes reference to The Chronicles of Eri, The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, The Annals of Clonmacnoise, and The Chronicles of Scotland. He quotes briefly from the latter and gives an extensive recounting of the entire Jeremiah legend in his notable book. However, like the learned writers cited above, Capt does not directly cite any passage in any ancient chronicle which explicitly mentions Jeremiah.(6)

This lack of corroboration of the Jeremiah legend has caused some to doubt the validity of the entire story.

But I will show in this article that Jeremiah is mentioned in the Irish annals and histories, albeit under another name. His Judahite ancestry and prophetic identity are clearly stated and even a brief physical description is given. His friend and amanuensis Baruch is also mentioned. Furthermore, I will name names and give the reader of this article the references by which he may corroborate the story himself.

First, however, in order to understand the proper chronological context of Jeremiah’s coming to Ireland, a brief review of Irish history prior to his arrival is necessary.

HISTORY OF IRELAND PRIOR TO JEREMIAH

Admittedly, the history of this ancient land can at times be confusing. It is said that the Irish like nothing so much as a good story, and their willingness to romanticise and embellish has led to a certain confusion. On the other hand, it is not entirely their fault. Much of the blame can be laid at the feet of Catholic monks who altered the traditional Irish histories, or invented their own, in order to deliberately hide the Israelite ancestry of the Irish people. For instance, they attempted to portray the Irish as descendants of Magog, son of Japheth!

Irish history begins, as the history of every civilisation does, after the Flood of Noah’s day. For three hundred years after that catastrophic event, Ireland was an uninhabited land. A claim to sovereignty over Ireland was made, according to historian Herman L. Hoeh who refers to Irish annals, by the Assyrian king Ninus, son of Bel, but the land was not colonised permanently.(7)

In c. 2069 BCE, again according to Hoeh who uses Geoffrey Keating’s History of Ireland as his source, a Hebrew named Parthalon with his followers settled the land and established a kingdom, the country being divided into four parts after his death. The date, however, is open to some question. If the P-r-t in the name Partholan can be equated with the b-r-t of the Hebrew brit (covenant), then it is difficult to see how this would have referred to a descendant of Abraham, who had not yet even been born. Moreover, as one authority states, “[t]he Partholanian (Parthalonian] story is clearly a variant of that of the eponymous ancestor of the British, Brutus [Greek: Peirithoos] the Trojan, with which it has been confused”.( Brutus arrived in Britain c. 1103 BCE, according to one scholar. (9) Others claim an earlier date, c. 1149 BCE. If this is so, then the date of 2069 BCE is impossible. The same source quoted above claims that Parthalon was a Milesian (see below).

In any event, the Parthalonians, whoever they may have been, ruled Ireland intermittently until 1709 BCE, when a tragedy befell them at the hands of Phoenician Formorians. The island was then invaded by Nemedians from Scythia who lived in Ireland until 1492 BCE, being ruled by the Formorians for much of this period. A portion of the Nemedians escaped during their sojourn in the land and returned in 1492 BCE as the Fir-Bolgs.

In 1456 BCE, a contingent of the famous Tuatha (pronounced “Too-ah”) de Danaan (“Tribe of Dan”) arrived in Ireland and ruled for 440 years until 1016 BCE. A second contingent came in 1213 BCE during the days of Deborah and Barak (Judges 5:17). Finally, in 1016 BCE, toward the end of the reign of King David of Israel, another Hebrew people, the Milesians, descendants of Eber the Hebrew according to Hoeh, conquered the Danaan (Danites), forcing them to accept their rule. The kingdom of Ireland was then divided between the two sons of Milesius, Ebher and Ghede the Ereamhon (Heremon or Erimionn, or high king) and a capital was established at Tobrad, also known as Tea-mur, Tamhair, Teamhara, and now called Tara.

Throughout all these invasions the Irish have meticulously maintained the record of their kings. Lists of these kings can be found in Geoffrey Keating’s History of Ireland, O’Flaherty’s Ogygia, and A..-M.-H.-J. Stokvis’s Manuel d’Histoire, volume II, pages 234-235.

For our purposes here, however, the royal line that most concerns us is that of Nemedh, reputed ancestor of the Hebrew people who invaded Ireland c. 1709 BCE. His royal descendants are listed in various sources, sometimes differently, yet they are important to our story, because it is in this genealogy whether always precisely accurate or not, that we find Jeremiah in Irish history, though under another name.

NEMEDIANS AND MILESIANS

Throughout this article, I have tried to pursue my objective, that of identifying Jeremiah in Irish history, in a manner that is easy for the reader to understand. The history of Ireland is confusing enough as it is without bringing in legends, fables, and tales of bravery and romance by the heroes of this “Holy Land” in the Atlantic. For this reason, I will confine myself to a discussion of Nemedh and his reputed descendants, one in particular whom I will identify with the Biblical Jeremiah.

Historian Geoffrey Keating, writing of the expedition of Nemedh to Ireland in “thirty-four ships, with a crew of thirty in each ship”(10) said that this party of colonisers was led by “Nemedh and his four sons, Stain, Larbanel the Prophet, Anind and Fergus Leth-derg (Fergus of the Red Side)”.(11) In the Annals of Clonmacnoise, the same four sons are named, in a different order (the father is called Neuie McAgamemnon): “with his foure sonns [camel Into Ireland out of Greece, his sonnes names alsoe were Sdarne, Jaruanell [Larbanel], the prophett, Fergus Leahderg, ... and Anynn [which] people Ruled Ireland 382 yeares”.(12)

Another historical source, the Leabhar Gabhala (Book of Conquests) agrees, adding that Iarbanel the Prophet was a Nemedian chief. (Though Iarbanel is called a “son” of Nemedh, this need not literally be true. It simply means he is a descendant of Nemedh.) The account reads: “Now as for Neimedh [Nemedh], he had four chiefs with him, Stain, Iarbanel the Prophet, Fergus Redside, and Ainnian. They were four sons of Neimedh”.(l 3)

Still another account names Nemedh the ancestor of the Danaans. Keating writes, “Some antiquarians say, that the nation, of whom we are now treating, were called Tuatha-De-Danaan, from Brian, Iuchar and Iucharba, the three sons of Dana, daughter of Delbaeth, son of Elathan, son of Niadh, son of Indae, son of Allae, son of Tath, son of Tabam, son of Enda or Enna, son of Beothach, son of Ibaath, son of Bathach, son of Iarbanel, son of Nemedh”.(14)

We find an echo of this in the Leabhar Gabhala, naming the same names as above (except that Elathan is called the son of Delbaeth) and also that “Larbanel the Prophet [is the], son of Neimedh [Nemedh], son of Agnoman”.(15) (Agnoman is an obvious reference to Agamemnon, king of the Greek Mycenae, who led an expedition against the Trojans to recover Helen, wife of Agamemnon’s brother Menelaus, king of Sparta. See also Neuie McAgamemnon, above.)

Two other figures from Irish history, Bres of the Danaan and Nuadh Silver-Arm claim descent from Nemedh.(16) Iarbanel is mentioned in both genealogies as a son of Nemedh. The Milesians also figure into this tale, but more on that later.

All this need not be as confusing as it looks, as there is a common thread running through all these genealogies. Whether we speak of Nemedians, Fir-Bolgs (a branch of the Nemedians), Danaans, or Milesians, all these peoples were Hebrews. As the Nemedians preceded the other peoples, it is clear that the Irish historians have attempted to trace the lineage of their kings to this island’s earliest Hebrew ancestors.

But still we have not identified Jeremiah in Irish history. Or have we? Actually, we have stumbled across his name several times already without recognising it. The next section will positively identify Jeremiah in the annals of ancient Ireland.

WHO WAS IARBANEL?

In all the genealogies of Nemedh’s descendants, one name is met with consistently: Iarbanel the Prophet. Who was he? Where did he come from? Do the annals have anything to say about him that might be germane to our argument? Astoundingly, the Irish histories have several important things to say about Iarbanel, enough to answer the above questions. They give us the land of his birth (not Ireland), a brief physical description, and a description of his character. Yet, outside of Irish history, nothing seems to be known about him. I will demonstrate, however, that once we have established the identity of Iarbanel, a great deal is known about him.

Iarbanel is clearly stated to be a descendant (“son of”) Nemedh, the Hebrew chieftain. This obviously makes Larbanel also a Hebrew. Furthermore, Iarbanel is also unique in that he is called a prophet, the only one of Nemedh’s descendants so called.

Nor is Larbanel the only name by which he is known in Irish history. He is also found in the Milesian story as well. Again, Keating, in his account of founders of a sort of school established by Fenius Farsa in Egypt after the Tower of Tahpanhes was abandoned. He writes, “The three sages that held the chief direction of this great school were Fenius Farsa from Scythia; Gaedal, son of Ethor, of the race of Gomer, from Greece; and Caei, the Eloquent (or the Just), from Judea, or Iar (Iarbanel], son of Nemha [Nemedh], as others call him ...“.(17)

Notice that Larbanel, known here by the name Caei, is called an “eloquent” and a “just” man. Also note that he comes from Judea! As for the name Tahpanhes, this should be familiar to Bible students. The name is found in the book of Jeremiah: “So they [a party of rebellious Jews, with faithful Jeremiah, his secretary Baruch, and King Zedekiah’s daughters] came into the land of Egypt: for they (the Jews) obeyed not the voice of the Lord: thus they came even to Tahpanhes” (Jeremiah 43:7). The Jewish refugees lived in Tahpanhes temporarily, and, according to legend, Jeremiah, his scribe, and the king’s daughters left that place to continue their journey to Ireland.

But Irish historians have more to say about Iarbanel. Keating, quoting from the Leabhar Gabhala, gives us the following lines from a poem: “The Fair Iarbanel, a prophet true, /Was son of Nemedh, son of Ardnaman- / To this gray hero, mighty in spells / Was born Beothach of wild steeds”.(18)

Here Iarbanel is called “fair” (which may refer to lightness of skin or a mild and pacific temperament or a man of sympathy, deep feeling and justice), a “prophet true” (as opposed to a false prophet); a “gray hero”; and, “mighty of spells”, i.e., a miracle-worker.

What have we learned about Iarbanel so far? Firstly, he was a Hebrew, a true prophet, who came from Judea, during the time of Jeremiah’s stay at Tahpanhes. He was an eloquent and a just man, fair of skin and/or temperament, an old man, considered a hero and a worker of miracles.

What do we know about Jeremiah? Firstly, he was a Hebrew, a true prophet (Jeremiah 1:5) coming from a priestly family (Jeremiah 1:1); he came from Judea (Anathoth in Judah, a town northeast of Jerusalem-Jeremiah 1:1). He spoke the word of the Lord often and eloquently, rising early (Jeremiah 7:13, 25; 25:3; 35:14), speaking of justice (Jeremiah 22:15; 23:5; 31:23; 50:7). His eloquence, given to Jeremiah by God Himself (Jeremiah 1:7, 9) is revealed in his words and in this admission from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that, “As far as the form of his poetic utterances is concerned, Jeremiah is of a poetical nature. ... He often speaks in the meter of an elegy”.(19) As for “fair” (in the temperamental sense) and just, the ISBE says that Jeremiah “was, by nature, gentle and tender in his feelings, and sympathetic”. (20)

At the time of his flight from Judea, Jeremiah would have been an old man. The ISBE says that “At that time (the time of Jeremiah’s stay at Tahpanhes] Jeremiah must have been from 70 to 80 years old”.(21) After a long life in the Lord’s service, enduring many trials, a ‘‘gray hero” indeed.

The evidence brought forth from Irish history and the Bible favours the identification of Iarbanel with Jeremiah. But a nagging question remains: the name Iarbanel itself. What is its derivation and what does it mean?

At the beginning of this article I promised to actually name Jeremiah in the Irish annals. I will now do so. The name Jeremiah in Hebrew is Yirmeyahu, abbreviated to Yirmeyah. It means “the Lord establishes”. The beginning letters in the name are yod and resh. It is possible, in fact, on the basis of the evidence presented here, more than likely that the letters “Lar” in “Larbanel” are simply an abbreviation for the name Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah), a transliteration into the Irish tongue of the yod and resh of the prophet’s name. But what does the rest of the name larbanel mean-”banel”? With an elementary knowledge of Hebrew, the meaning is easy to discover. “Ban” is simply the Hebrew ben, meaning “son of”; “el” is the Hebrew El, meaning “God”. Remembering that “Lar” is a short form of the name Jeremiah, one can easily see that Iarbanel, translated from Hebrew to English is Iar ben El, or “Jeremiah, the son of God”!

As a true prophet of God, who had God’s Holy Spirit within him, Jeremiah could legitimately be called a son of God. The Lord Himself as much said so, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou carnest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” - (Jeremiah 1:5). As a “sanctified one”, i.e., one set apart for holy use and having the Spirit of God, Jeremiah certainly qualified as a saint.

Was Iarbanel also a saint? The Irish annals do not explicitly say so, but it can be assumed that for a “just” man who was a “prophet true” and “mighty of spells”, and whose name meant “son of God”, sainthood was at least a distinct possibility. It is interesting to note that the Irish word for saint is namh (pronounced “nav”), and that Iarbanel is said to be a son of Nemedh, also spelled Nemha. Is there a philological connection between Nemedh/Nemha and namh? More light on this question will be shed later, but for now let us note the opinion of Yair Davidy, a respected Israeli Ten Tribes researcher, who points out that, “Nemha [Nemedh] (i.e. in ‘Iar son of Nemha’ above) is from the same root as Nemedian’ and means sanctified” (22) (emphasis mine). A sanctified person is a saint!

The evidence presented in this article leads to only one conclusion: that Iarbanel was Jeremiah. If one does not believe that Iarbanel was Jeremiah, then one is forced to believe that an amazing thing has happened. It has happened that a Hebrew prophet, a true prophet of the Lord in whom God’s Holy Spirit dwelt and was thus a “son of God”, who was a saint, who lived in Judea, who fled to Tahpanhes in Egypt with his secretary and friend Baruch and others, who was an eloquent speaker and a gentle man who preached justice, who was an old man and a worker of miracles, disappeared from the face of the earth.

At the same time in history there appeared in Ireland, a Hebrew prophet, whose name means “son of God”, a true prophet, who was considered a saint, who lived in Judea, who fled to Tahpanhes in Egypt, who had a “son" named Brec, (23) who was an eloquent and a just man, who was an old man and “mighty in spells”, appeared on the scene, fully formed, literally out of nowhere.

If one does not believe that Iarbanel was Jeremiah, one must believe that this is all a coincidence.

The coincidence is impossible. Iarbanel was Jeremiah. It is a fact of history.

AN HONEST OBJECTION EXAMINED

Before leaving this subject however, it is only fair to mention that an alternative identity for Iarbanel has been proposed. In the third volume of his great trilogy on the identity of the Ten Tribes, Lost Israelite Identity, esteemed Israeli researcher Yair Davidy proposes that Iarbanel was Jar (or Yair) of Judah. He writes, “ ‘Jar’ or ‘Yair’ or ‘Jair’ is recorded in the Bible as a descendant of Judah who settled in the land of Gilead of Machir in Menasseh (sic)” (24) and furthermore that, “Yair in the Bible was linked to both Judah and to Gilead of Menasseh (sic) east of the Jordan one of whose sons was Peresh (‘Separated’ or ‘Sanctified’) which name is identical with that of ‘Nemha’ in Irish”. (25)

There is no doubt that Jar (or Yair) existed and that he was also a Hebrew, and that he came from Judah or Judea. This he shares in common with Iarbanel, but that is where the similarity ends. Iar-Yair could not have been Iarbanel for the following reasons: Yair is nowhere in the Bible called a prophet as is Iarbanel in the Irish annals or Jeremiah in Scripture; he was not a saint nor was he sanctified; there is no evidence that he was eloquent of speech or particularly just as were Iarbanel and Jeremiah; he did not leave Judah to come to Egypt; he did not work miracles; he did not have a secretary/”son” named Baruch or Brec; he was not venerated in history as were both Iarbanel and Jeremiah.

Some will argue, however, that Davidy’s point concerning Yair being “linked” to both Judah and Gilead of Manasseh one of whose sons had a name meaning “separated" or “sanctified”, indicates the identity of Iar-Yair-Jair with Iarbanel. But I will show that the true link exists, in both a physical and spiritual sense, not between Yair and Judah and/or Manasseh, but between Iarbanel-Jeremiah and Aaron, brother of Moses.

Let us remember that anciently “son of” need not represent a direct father-son relationship, but only a descendancy or even a spiritual relationship of a student to his spiritual teacher. Jeremiah was the “son of [father-son relationship] of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin” (Jeremiah 1:1). Anathoth was a priestly town.

E. W. Bullinger in a note to Jeremiah 1:1 in his Companion Bible, in comparing the priestly lines of Eleazar and Ithamar says that “Anathoth belonged to that [line] of Ithamar". This is not a common name in Scripture and only one man bears it. Ithamar is the fourth son of Aaron who founded a line of priests (I Chronicles 24:3, 6). It is obvious that if Jeremiah’s father, Hilkiah, who lived in Anathoth, was of the line of Ithamar, son of Aaron, then this makes Jeremiah a descendant (“son of”) Aaron as well.

Is there any evidence from the Bible that Iarbanel-Jeremiah was the “son of” a “Nemha” (“sanctified one”) or a namh (saint)? Could such a description apply to Aaron? Certainly! The Bible confirms it. Aaron was consecrated as a priest of the Lord, separated, sanctified, and given the Holy Spirit of God. Speaking to Moses, God says that “[thou] shalt anoint them [Aaron and his Sons], and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office” (Exodus 28:41). See also Exodus 40:13, Numbers 3:3; 29:29.

Thus Iarbanel-Jeremiah was also a son of “Nemha”, namh, a “sanctified one”. Even more so, since the sanctification is a spiritual as well as a fleshly one; whereas in the case of Peresh (“separated”) only a tribal separation is implied. No spiritual or physical sanctification, both appropriate to a prophet, son of a priest, of a line of priests, can be inferred from the meaning of the name Peresh (who was not a priest in any case). Furthermore, namh has an applicability to Iarbanel-Jeremiah entirely lacking for Peresh.

CONCLUSION

The evidence is in. The conclusion is obvious. Iarbanel was Jeremiah. Contrary to the doubting opinions of some, Jeremiah is mentioned in the Irish annals, under another name.

This of course is not the total answer to all the mystery surrounding Jeremiah in Ireland. The question of Ollam Fodhla, variously called a prophet and a king in Irish history, needs to be explored. There are also questions that need to be answered concerning King Zedekiah’s daughters allegedly taken to Ireland by Jeremiah, the identity of Eochaidh the Heremon, the whereabouts of the wondrous stone, harp, and ark which were also carried to Ireland by Jeremiah according to legend. But that is for further research and/or revelation.

For now, it needs only to be said that Jeremiah came to Ireland, as proven from Irish and Biblical history. His coming was part of the purpose of God for his people of Israel, a purpose ironically revealed every day, yet seen by few. Let us pray that with further research and revelation the few will one day become many.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

(1). Haberman, Frederick. Tracing OurAncestors. Bumaby, B.C., Canada: The Association of The Covenant People, 1934, p. 153.

(2). Ibid., p. 153.

(3). Fox, John S. The World’s Greatest Throne. Burnaby, B.C., Canada: The Association of The Covenant People, n.d., p.23.

(4). Ibid.,p. 24.

(5). Ibid.,p. 24.

(6). Capt, E. Raymond, M.A.,A.I.A., F.R.S.A. (Scot.),Jacob’s Pillar: A Biblical Historical Study. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Artisan Sales, 1977.

(7). Hoeh, Herman L., Ph.D. Compendium of World History. Pasadena, Calif.: Ambassador College, 1963. See Volume I, Chapter 18. Much of my review of Ireland’s ancient history comes from Hoeh’s two-volume work on the ancient history of the world.

(. Bible Research Handbook. London: Covenant Publishing Co. Ltd., 1946, Serial No. I 18a.

(9). Haberman, op. cit., p. 74.

(10). Keating, Geoffrey. The History of Ireland from the Earliest Period to the English Invasion. Translated by John O’Mahony, New York, 1866, p. 122.

(11). Keating, ibid., p. 122.

(12).Annals of Clonmacnoise, from the Creation to A.D. 1408. Translated by Conell MaGeoghagan, 1627. Edited by Denis Murphy. Dublin: University Press, 1896, p. 14.

(13). Leabhar Gabhala or the Book of the Conquests of Ireland. Michael O’Cleirigh (rec.). Dublin: University College, sec.44.

(14). Keating, op. cit., p. 140.

(15). Leabhar Gabhala, sec. 100.

(16). Leabhar Gabhala, secs. 106,107.

(17). Keating, pp. 155,166. The observant reader may object to my reference to the Tower of Tahpanhes in the story of Fenius Farsa, Gaedal, and Caei the Eloquent (or Caei the Just), as according to Keating the school was established after the Flood on the “plain of Shenaar”. However, it is obvious that the Tower of Babel and the “Tower” of Tahpanhes have been confused in Keating’s account. Neither Scythia nor Judea existed at the time of the Tower of Babel, nor was Caei-Iar yet even born. “Shenaar” may refer to the plain of Shinar mentioned in Genesis. Or could it be an echo of Goshen, the location of Tahpanhes

(18). Keating, op. cit., p. 138.

(19). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdinans Publishing Co., Volume III, p. 1590.

(20). ISBE, 111:1589.

(21). ISBE, 111:1588.

(22). Davidy, Yair. Lost Israelite Identity. Jerusalem, Israel: Russell-Davis Publishers, n.d., p. 349-350.

(23). Keating, op. cit., p. 126. In Keating’s history, Simeon Brec is the son of Starn, son of Nemedh. In the Leabhar Gabhala, he is either the son of Erglan, son of Beoan, son of Starn, son of Neimedh [Nemedh] (sec. 67); or he is, significantly, son of Iarbanel, son of Neimedh [Nemedh] (sec. 53).

(24). Davidy, op. cit., p. 350.

(25). Davidy, ibid., p. 350.

A ROYAL ROMANCE

By

Valerie Martlew, U.K.

ONE of the Biblical mysteries is what has happened to the House of David in the world today.

Many people believe that the Lord Jesus has superseded the need for the Royal House of David since His first coming, but if we believe that, we are going against the clear message of the Bible, for the Lord said to King David that his throne would be established for ever, and the Lord Jesus did not take up His Kingdom at
His first coming:

"And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the Lord teIleth thee that he wiIl make thee an house. And when thy days be fuIfiIled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I wiIl set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shaIl build a house for my name, and I wiIl establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I wiIl be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commits iniquity, I wiIl chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shaIl not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shaIl be established for
ever." - (II Samuel 7:11-16)

Do we believe God's message to David by the prophet Nathan, or do we consider that He changed His mind and His Plan? Remember that He also said:

"For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." - (Malachi 3:6)

There is also His pronouncement to Isaiah:

"I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return" - (Isaiah 45:23)

The Lord has sworn by Himself, please note carefully. What could possibly be more binding than this? God also said:

"For thus saith the Lord, David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel"- (Jeremiah 33: 17)

The Hebrew word in this instance is "Ish" which can mean either a man or a woman.

Remember also that while David was still alive, and while he must have felt himself and his line and kingdom to be reasonably secure, that the Lord swore another
tremendous oath:

"Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne"; - (Jeremiah 33:20-21)

If we believe God's Word, we had better begin to look for the House of David in the world today.

You will remember that after the Northern House of Israel had been carried away captive to Assyria, the Southern House of Judah, which was still ruled over by
David's descendants, held out for another hundred years. They were constantly harried by both the Assyrians, and then by the Babylonians, being besieged from time to time, and being forced to pay tribute.All the time the tribute was paid faithfully, Judah was not harassed too much, but occasionally various kings of Judah rebelled, and refused to pay any taxes. After all, these impositions were draining the life blood of the country. The last good king of Judah had been Josiah, in
whose time the Bookof the Law was rediscovered. (See II Kings 22). He was killed opposing Pharaoh Necho when the Egyptians invaded Judah.

The Babylonians had defeated the Assyrians and the Egyptians in 607 B.C., which the prophet Jeremiah tells us was at the time of Jehoiakim's accession. This King,
the son of Josiah, (II Kings 23) had been appointed by the Pharaoh Necho, and after the defeat of the Egyptians he continued to pay tribute to the new rulers, the
Babylonians. However, we read in II Kings 24: 1-15;

"In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebeIled against him. And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servants the prophets. Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did; And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he fiIled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the Lord would not pardon. Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done. At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother; and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said. And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour; even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king's mother, and the king's wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon."

His uncle, Mattaniah, the third son o fKing Josiah was appointed king by Nebuchadnezzar. His name was changed to Zedekiah. The prophet Jeremiah lived in his
time, and constantly warned of making alliances with the Egyptians against the Babylonians. He was ignored by Zedekiah, and Jeremiah was seized by the king's
officers and thrown into a dungeon.

Both the rulers and the people considered that Jeremiah was to blame for the disasters which they had to endure, because he had frequently warned them of the consequences to be expected from their sins. However,Jeremiah had been told by the Lord to deliver this message to the king, as in this way the people would
have been spared much suffering. The prophet was pursued by angry officials, who considered him to be a traitor.Jeremiah attempted to escape from Jerusalem
into Benjamin when the siege of Jerusalem was raised, but he was captured at the gate and imprisoned by Jonathan, the Scribe. - (Jeremiah 37:11 to 15)

"And it came to pass, that when the army of the Chaldeans was broken up from Jerusalem for fear of Pharaoh's army, Then Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem to go into the land of Benjamin, to separate himself thence in the midst of the people. And when he was in the gate of Benjamin, a captain of the ward was there, whose name was lrijah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Hananiah; and he took Jeremiah the prophet, saying, Thou fallest away to the Chaldeans. Then said Jeremiah, it is false; I fall not away to the Chaldeans. But he hearkened not to him: so lrijah took Jeremiah, and brought him to the princes. Wherefore the princes were wroth with Jeremiah, and smote him, and put him in prison in the house of Jonathan the scribe: for they had made that the prison."

He was ill-treated in this prison, and King Zedekiah came to hear of it. (Jeremiah 37:17)

"Then Zedekiah the king sent, and took him out: and the king asked him secretly in his house, and said, Is there any word from the Lord? And Jeremiah said, There is: for, said he, thou shalt be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon."

After this, the king had Jeremiah put into a milder prison, which did not please the princes who were opposed to him, and they accused him to the king of weakening the peoples' resistance through pessimistic propaganda. Once more, he was put into cruel confinement, in a pit this time, from its description, sounding like a mediaeval "oubliette". An Ethiopian official pleaded for him to the king, and he remained a prisoner, but in better accommodation, until the final defeat of Jerusalem, when Zedekiah fled and was captured and taken to Babylon.

The Egyptians had honoured the pact with Zedekiah and came to his aid. Consequently, the siege of Jerusalem lasted about eighteen months, and caused great
sufferingt o the people. When the walls were broken by Babylonian battering rams, and Nebuchadnezzar's troops poured in, Zedekiah tried to escape, but was
captured near Jericho.

The Babylonians were as cruel as the Assyrians towards their captured enemies. Zedekiah was forced to witness the killing of all his sons, and then he was blinded. He remained a captive in Babylon all the rest of his life, and his people were taken captive into Babylon, whilst Jerusalem was razed to the ground. This would seem to have been the end of the House of David, especially to the Babylonians. They had not heard of the Israel law which stated that daughters could succeed in default of male heirs. This had been the custom since the time of Joshua;

"But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. Therefore according to the commandment of the Lord he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father." - (Joshua 17:3-4)

Jeremiah was released from prison by Nebuchadnezzar's decree, for the Babylonian king considered him to be an ally for counselling Zedekiah against resistance. He was subsequently treated well. He remained, with the new Governor of Judah, who set up his seat in Mizpah.

Jeremiah, having been charged with the responsibility of Zedekiah's daughters, then applied to the Governor; (Jeremiah 40:6)

"Then went Jeremiah unto Gedaliah the son of Ahikam to Mizpah; and dwelt with him among the people that were left in the land."

Nebuzaradan, an officialof Nebuchadnezzar's, had received the following instructions from his king: (Jeremiah 39:11 to 12)

"Now Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon gave charge concerning Jeremiah to Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, saying, Take him, and look well to him, and do him no harm; but do unto him even as he shall say unto thee".

Obviously the Lord had overruled here, for note that Nebuchadnezzar told Nebuzaradan to do as Jeremiah asked. This was quite a concession for an eastern king
of those days!

From subsequent events, we may infer that Jeremiah made three requests, the first of which must have concerned the Ark of the Covenant. Perhaps Jeremiah told Nebuzaradan the story of how the Ark had brought plagues and danger to any aliens who tried to capture or possess it, as the Philistines and the men of Bethshemesh had found to their cost. This must have persuaded Nebuzaradan to yield it to Jeremiah's custody, together with his two other requests, which were to have the custody of Zedekiah's daughters and the Stone of Destiny, or Jacob's Pillar. A Babylonian would not know that daughters could inherit the throne under Israelitish law, so it appears that this request was granted, for we read in Scripture that they were with Jeremiah at Mizpah:- (Jeremiah 43:6)

"Even men, and women, and children, and the king's daughters, and every person that Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah".

Jacob's Pillar he probably regarded as a worthless lump of rock, so was happy to let Jeremiah have that too. In this way, Jeremiah was able to save the most important things for the future.

There are traditions that Jeremiah took the Ark of the Covenant through a secret passage to a secret chamber in Jerusalem. The Temple hill is honeycombed with
passages and chambers, and some have been found, but they are under the Dome of the Rock and the Muslims guard them well and will not allow excavations.
There are apparently other tunnels running from the Virgin'sFountain. Probably, Jeremiah, being a prophet, knew that the Temple would be burnt and Jerusalem
destroyed, so he would have entrusted the secret of the hiding place to those who needed to know, so that the information eventually reached Nehemiah.

It is possible that the Ark was moved to another hiding place by Jeremiah, when he heard of the treachery of Ishmael, who was a member of the royal family. He had been a refugee in Ammon, and returned and murdered Gedaliah, the Governor, perhaps because he thought that he would have a claim to the throne if he disposed of the protector of the princesses, and married one of them. It appears from the accounts in Jeremiah 40 and 41 that he was absent when Gedaliah was murdered, so where had he gone? He must have escaped, taking the Ark, the Stone and the princesses with him. We know that he lived in Egypt, but he did not have the Ark with him then.

Why should we be so sure that Jeremiah saved the princesses? We will turn to a remarkable prophecy which is little understood by Bible students.

"And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel; (Ezekiel 17:1-2)...
Thus saith the Lord God; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent: In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell. And all the trees of the field shall know that I the Lord have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the Lord have spoken and have done it". - (Ezekiel 17:22-24)

In prophecy the cedar means the royal house. Note that the young twigs from the top of the cedar were cropped and carried away to a distant land, and planted
there. "Tender twig" implies femininity, so the royal house was to continue in the person of a young princess.

We read in Jeremiah 43:1-7;

"And it came to pass, that when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking unto all the people all the words of the Lord their God, for which the Lord their God had sent him to them, even all these words, Then spake Azariah the son of Hoshaiah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the proud men, saying unto Jeremiah, Thou speakest falsely: the Lord our God hath not sent thee to say, Go not into Egypt to sojourn there: But Baruch the son of Neriah setteth thee on against us, for to deliver us into the hand of the Chaldeans, that they might put us to death, and carry us away captives into Babylon. So Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, and all the people, obeyed not the voice of the Lord, to dwell in the land of Judah. But Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, took all the remnant of Judah, that were returned from all nations, whither they had been driven, to dwell in the land of Judah; Even men, and women, and children, and the king's daughters, and every person that Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah. So they came into the land of Egypt: for they obeyed not the voice of the Lord: thus came they even to Tahpanhes".

This does not mean that Jeremiah and the princesses disobeyed God. The responsibility lay with Johanan, the Captain, and his associates. Their fear was for the safety of the princesses, and God used their disobedience for good.

Going now to secular history, having left Jeremiah and his charges in Egypt, we find that the Pharaoh of the time was Hophra. He had garrisoned the frontiers of
Egypt with Greek and Carian mercenaries, and Tahpanhes was one of his garrison towns, manned by Milesians, or mercenaries of Miletus, a town on the coast
of what is Turkey today. The people of this town were of IsraeIitish origin, and Trojans (who were also Hebrews who had migrated from Egypt before the Exodus) had fled there after the siege of Troy.

When Jeremiah and his charges arrived in Tahpanhes, Pharaoh took an interest in them, and "adopted" them for their protection. It was an established custom in
Egypt to do this. Thus Jeremiah and at least two princesses (note that the Bible mentions the "king's daughters") settled for a while in a peaceful and secure place as Pharaoh's guests. Jeremiah was not such a strange choice for guardian as one may think for he was a relative of the royal house himself, as we read in II Kings 23:31:

"Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah".

In the default of other male relatives as protectors, who better than a man who had been chosen by God as His mouthpiece?

A significant fact was noted by Sir Flinders Petrie, the archaeologist, in his book "The History of Egypt". I quote:

"To this day Tahpanhes or Defneh is called the Palace of the Jew's Daughter".

Another significant fact is that Tahpanhes means "flight".

Jeremiah received his commission from God, as he tells us in Jeremiah 1:9-10;

"Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant".

Jeremiah could not build and plant in Palestine as the Babylonians ruled there, and the greater and better and more skilled part of the people were miles away in Babylon.

As the princesses matured, it is natural that some of the garrison soldiers of their distant kin should notice them. Tradition tells us that one of the princes of the Milesians, named Niul, was a friend of one of the Pharaohs, and received some land from him. He became an important officer in Pharaoh's army and fought a successful battle against the Ethiopians. Pharaoh gave him his "adopted daughter" as a reward. Unless the princess had been willing, we cannot imagine that Jeremiah would have allowed this to happen, so it seems that the princess was equally attracted to Niul. Neither would Jeremiah have allowed one of the heiresses of the royal line of David to marry a person who was not of Hebrew stock. According to tradition, the two princesses were named Tamar (or Tea) Tephi and Scota. It is not absolutely clear which one was the elder, or which one married Niul, but a Dr. Keating wrote a paper which was read to the Royal Irish Academy in 1821, in which he named her as Scota. Dr. Keating lived during the reign of Charles I (1625-1649). He travelled throughout Ireland, gleaning traditional material from bards and priests, and he was considered in his time to be a faithful narrator. Since the Irish traditions mention the arrival of a prophet, his scribe, Bruch or Brug, and two princesses, together with a sacred stone, he went to great trouble to trace their travels back through Spain, to Egypt.

Dr. Keating also mentions that a successor to the Pharaoh who was friendly to the Milesians, was not so disposed, and he made war on the Milesians and banished them from Egypt. Niul, the princesses, Jeremiah and Baruch his scribe, together with Niul's men, took sail for Spain, where they knew that Hebrew colonies existed. Here they stayed for 26 years, and the princess who was the wife of Niul had two sons, Heber (which became Eibhar in Irish) who was born in Egypt, and Heremon (Eireamhon) who was born in Galicia, in the north of Spain.

Dr. Keating says that the Milesians ruled in their area of settlement, but that there came a time of famine, and a man called Ith was sent to the Western Isle. "Er" means west, and "In" means isle, (cf modern Gaelic "inch") so that is why the ancient name of Ireland is Erin. On his reporting back, the Milesians decided to cross the sea to Ireland. They arrived at what is now Wexford, and the sons of Niul went to Teamhair (Tara). There they settled and divided Ireland into four provinces, Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught. This land had previously been settled by colonists from the tribe of Dan, known in Ireland as the Tuatha de Danaan (meaning The Tribe of Dan). This had happened long before Jeremiah's time.

Even earlier than the conquest by the Danaans, a branch of Judah had settled in Ireland. You will remember the story of Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar, as told in Genesis 38. This is the story of Tamar's twins, and how Zarah was supplanted by Pharez, his brother. This was in the early days of the sojourn in Egypt.
When Zarah grew up, he was obviously disenchanted that his brother had taken the leadership, and went off to seek his fortune elsewhere. Tradition tells us that he
settled in Ireland. In his travels he also went to Troy, and one of his descendants was Brutus the Trojan, who came to Britain after the fall of Troy, and is credited with the foundation of London. The Milesians were also of this stock.

The line of Pharez continued in Palestine, and King David was of this line. It continued until Zedekiah, and all his male heirs were killed. King Jeconiah's descendants were the only ones left, but Jeconiah had been a bad king, as you rnay remember, and the Lord decreed that none of his descendants should reign.

"Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shaIl not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah". - (Jeremiah 22:28-30)

The Lord Jesus took his inheritance of the throne through his mother Mary. His step father Joseph was of Jeconiah's line. Both Mary and Joseph traced their lineage
back to Nathan, a son of King David. Only Mary's line was the valid one. In the meantime, the line of David had to continue somewhere in the world, and it had to be through Zarah, since the Pharez line was in Palestine.

The Bible tells us that Zarah had two sons, Darda and Calcol. Calcol's line ruled in Ireland, and King Eochaidh was his descendant at the time when Jeremiah and his charges landed in Ireland. The Princess Tamar Tephi was married to Eochaidh, thus uniting the two branches of Pharez and Zarah. Their son was the ancestor of our present Queen. Remember that the Lord had promised Judah:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shaIl the gathering of the people be" - (Genesis 49:10)

Shiloh is the Lord Jesus, or the Messiah, at His second coming. This confirms that the sceptre of Judah must be continuing today. The Lord said to David:

"My covenant wiIl I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah". - (Psalm 89:34-37)

To return to Jeremiah and the princesses, we find Irish traditions of a ship being wrecked off Carrickfergus, in which there was a holy man, a royal princess, a scribe
called "Brug" (Baruch) and a holy and treasured stone called the "Lia Fail" (meaning "wonderful stone"). This stone was carried to Tara, where all the subsequent kings were crowned sitting upon it, as had been the custom in Israel and Judah. You will remember that Jacob had set up a pillar and anointed it with oil at the place he called Bethel ("House of God").

"And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was caIled Luz at the first. And Jacob vowed a vow saying, If God wiIl be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and wiIl give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shaIl the Lord be my God. And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I wiIl surely give the tenth unto thee". - (Genesis 28:18-22)

This stone was subsequently much prized by the Israelites, and followed them through the Wilderness. It was the same rock which Moses struck, and from which
water flowed. In later years it was used for coronations. One instance is given to us in II Kings, when the young prince who was heir to the throne had been hidden
from his wicked grandmother, Athaliah, by his aunt. When he became old enough to understand his destiny there was a palace coup, and young Joash was crowned in the time-honoured Israelitish manner:

"And he brought forth the king's son, and put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony; and they made him king, and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, God save the king. And when Athaliah heard the noise of the guard and of the people, she came to the people into the temple of the Lord. And when she looked, behold, the king stood by a pillar, as the manner was, and the princes and the trumpeters by the king, and all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew with trumpets: and Athaliah rent her clothes, and cried, Treason, Treason". - (II Kings 11:12-14)

This custom has continued to this day. Even in their wanderings and paganism, the Saxons retained a dim memory of this rite, for they had a sacred stone on which
their kings were crowned. It is still at Kingston on Thames, in Surrey.

This stone, which has followed David's line wherever they wandered, is the Lia Fail of the Irish, the Stone of Scone of the Scots, and the Coronation Stone, which until recently was under the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey. It is the stone which Jacob anointed and set up as a memorial pillar. It has two rings at either end, made of rustless iron (invented well before the era of stainless steeI), and it is obvious that it has been transported long distances with a pole slung through the rings, for it is worn just where a pole would have gone. When, just before the present Queen's Coronation, the Stone was stolen and taken to Scotland, it was broken, and had to be repaired. Later, a minister visited the repairer and begged a few fragments of the Stone. He sent these for analysis, together with specimens of rock from Bethel. The analysis stated that "the specimens are similar in time and space". This proves that the Stone is not a piece of Scottish rock, as some would have us believe.

The Queen's family tree was researched in detail in 1902, by the Rev.W.M.H. Milner, M.A., and a copy of the chart which he drew up from many sources, including archives in Windsor Castle, may be inspected on application to the Valley Bible Fellowship. It is too long to reproduce here.

From the foregoing brief resume, it may be seen that the Lord made provision many hundreds of years before Israel was banished from the Holy Land, and had
established a royal throne of the line of David to rule over them when they were eventually gathered in the Appointed Place. How marvellous is His Great Plan!

How privileged we are to be able to understand it, albeit dimly

The Grave Of
Baruch
From Harold Stough
Notes
Ceinwin, author, of The Broad Arrow,
from "British Israel and Judah
Prophetic Messenger" - July 19,
1883.
Nearly forty years ago. I was staying at
Carten in Glamorganshire and at low
tide walked from there to Barry Island
over the sands. Returning by the village
of Barry, I went into a small inn to dry
my feet. Talking to a little old woman, I
asked her if there was anything to see on
the island. "Yes," she said, "there is the
grave of Baruch, the Prophet. Barry is
the short for Baruch, and this parish and
the island is called after him."
In those days I cared for none of these
things, but said, "How can you think
such a thing, for Baruch was a Prophet,
in the Holy Land." "That is right," was
her answer, "but he came over and was
buried in Barry island, and his grave is
there."
Years after I found records of St. Bynnch
in the "Lives of the Cambrian Brit-
St Baruch's Chapel Barry Island on
the site of Baruch;s grave
Steven Books & Tapes
P.O. Box 716
Canterbury
Kent
CT1 2GG
For books by identity authors –
Kenneth McKilliam, Ria Splinter
and Richard Porter plus many other
subjects and difficult to obtain books.
( Page 21 )
ish Saints." He has a church dedicated
to him in Glamorganshire, and is described
as "a man of Israel." The little
church is a ruin, not far from Cowbridge.
That Baruch was the founder of the Benedictine
Order there is little doubt.
"Blessed," is the translation of the Hebrew
word Baruch hence they who followed
him were called Benedictines or
Blessed Ones. They were MEN OF ISRAEL,
as a glance at the Benedictine
missal will show, claimed by Roman
Catholics as a teaching from a young
monk in Italy, but the Sarum Psalters
were written by the Sons of Baruch the
Scribe.
NB Barry Island is in the Bristol Channel
near to Cardiff S. Wales.