Brit-Am Now 1201

"Shoshana Yaacov"
The Brit-Am Rose

Symbol of United Israel
Make an Offering

Brit-Am Now no. 1201
Date 5 Av 5768 6 August 2008
Contents:
1. Remnants of the Lost Tribes Still in Germany?
2. Where did the name "Khazar" Come From?
3. Some Criticisms of Brit-Am and Replies
###################################################

Publications
Brit-Am
Discussion Group
Contents by Subject Research
Revelation
Reconciliation

Contribute Site Map
Contents in Alphabetical Order
This Site

"KHAZARS
Israelite Tribes in Exile

Pre-Publication Offer
http://britam.org/books.html

Click Here

1. Remnants of the Lost Tribes Still in Germany?

From: "Reinh
Subject: Question

Dear Mr. Davidiy,

My name is Reinhard..., I am living in Germany.
I'm not very familiar with the English Language, sorry.

Thank you for your research on issues of the Ten Tribes.

I'm very interested in this matter because in our region, the southern part of the former GDR [German Democratic Republic i.e. Communitst East Germany]
(that is the mountain part of the state Saxonia) there are many people who believe in [Christianity] and are friends of Israel.
They did so in the time of Communism as well as now, when anti-Zionism and anti-Christianity in Germany is rising again.
So I know many people here who are know and believe that they are descendants of the Ten Tribes.

2. Where did the name "Khazar" Come From?
Paul D Pruitt wrote:

Yair,

Could the name Khazar be a variant of Kosher?

Brit-Am Reply:
It could be. There are several possibilities.
Names however in order to ascribe them meaning and show that this meaning is why they were given need to fulfill different criteria. Similar names should be known in the area.
Precedents should exist by which we know that other peoples in the region were called names for reasons similar to those which we suggest.
A name can have several sources i.e. originally the name was given for one reason then it underwent changes and applications because it was locally interpreted in a different way.
At present we believe the name "Khazar" to have had three possible sources all of which could have been determinative. This is not as far-fetched as it may sound since ancient peoples gave meanings to existing names according to their own languages.
In each different area over which the Khazars ruled their name could have been interpreted according to the languages and culture of that region.

The three possibilities are:

(1. Agathyrsi. This was the name of a people who were ancestors to the western section of Khazars.
The Agathyrsi were also called Agazari and Akatzari.
The Agathyrs derived from the Clan of "Jeezer" son of Gilead son of Menasseh (Numbers 26:30).
The name transliterated as "Jeezer" in Hebrew was pronounceable as "Ay-(g)a-zar" and so we have "Aygazari" or "Agathyrsi".
They were in the same areas as the Khazars and we have at least two reliable contemporary sources that equate them with the Khazars.
[We also find Agathyrsi amongst the Picts of Scotland].

(2. GAEZ. The Khazars are also known as Gazari and their name was understood to express the sense of "wandering" as in both Turkish and in Hebrew where the root "GAZ" has this connotation.
Parallels to the use of this word-root applied to other peoples exist
in the Khazar-sphere.
This incidentally gives the name "Khazar" the same significant meaning as our words "Hebrew" and "Scot".

(3. Caesar. As proposed by Dr. Avraham Poliak ("Khazaria" Tel-Aviv, Israel, 1951) the term "Khazar" (also rendered in the west sections of
Khazaria as "Khosar" or Chosar") is derived from "Caesar" the same as "Czar" in Russian.
Polak suggests that the name Khazar is derived from the same source as the words Czar, and Kaiser, i.e. ruler. Similarly the Russians used the terms, "Land of the Czar", "People of the Czar", "Czarites" for their own Czardom.
The Slavs referred to Byzantium as Czarograd.
Peoples often received names after what their neighbors around them called them.
The Khazars were allied with Byzantium against the Arabs and their ruling house intermarried with that of Byzantium.
Byzantium represented the Roman Empire in the East.
Chazar is a term applied to royalty amongst the Khazars.
In Arabic sources the terms "Land of the Khazar" and "Land of the Cagan [i.e. Ruler]" are interchangeable "Khazar" or "Chozar" approximates how the Turks and Persians probably would have spelt the Latin title "Caesar".
The Khazars were a race of rulers descended from the Royal Scythians (Scythoi Basili) and from the Sacaraucae i.e. "Rulers of the Sacae".
We therefore have similarity in sound, parallels of application of similar names in the region, reasons for application according to prevailing practice in the area.
http://www.britam.org/Khazarbook.html

3. Some Criticisms of Brit-Am and Replies
john p. wrote:

Hello,
I most cordially salute you. I support the idea that prophesy indicates the return and union of the lost tribes with the remnant of Israel. Because of the importance of the message you're trying to express, I suggest that you improve the way you present this information. Because you commit the following mistakes the very points you are making are simultaneously discredited. I'm respectfully write hoping that my constructive criticism will be of help to you:

You have a section titled "Biblical Proofs Identifying the Lost Ten Tribes". I suggest you change the title of this section. Proof suggests that you have verifyable evidence. In all my reading I do not find a single piece of evidence that would be considered proof. There's a lot of speculation, but no where is there proof beyond the odd Bible verse; and since you're dealing with geography, history and anthropology really only academic evidence would suffice for you to make such a bold statement as to affirm that you have identified the location of the 10 lost tribes. Thus the honest thing would be for you to label such information in such a way where you note that it's an opinion based solely on disputed Biblical interpretation.

A lot of your Geographic "Proofs" are cemented on the "extremes of the earth" argument. I find it very interesting that you mention the USA, Northwestern Europe, South Africa, and Australia as the corners of the earth. But if we take Jerusalem as the center of the world wouldn't Russia and Argentina replace South Africa and Northwestern Europe. Could this be a case of Anglo or Caucasian bias in the case of Argentina, and some other kind of bias against Russia?

For the parts where you quote a word and interpret its meaning, it would be good for you to reference the dictionary or source where you got that information. In general it would be good for you to accurately quote your sources on all your historical, Talmudic, and linguistic statements. I suggest adopting a MLA, or Chicago style guide.

Your backgrounds are very distracting and make the text very difficult to read on occasions. I would suggest you change specially the parts that have black text on the red and blue Magen background; that text is specially hard to read!

It would give your information more credibility if there was an easy to find link to your biography (with your relevant expertise).

Shalom and blessings.

John P

Brit-Am Replies:
Thank you for writing. We appreciate criticism and would like to hear more of it
even if we do not always agree with it or consider it justified.
There is a story the Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of Britain met the Chancellor of Imperial Germany, Otto von Bismarck, at The Berlin Conference (1884?1885).
Bismarck complained that political opposition in Germany was making life difficult.
Disraeli remarked that if in Britain the Opposition Parties would not be prepared to examine and criticize every step the government he headed took then he would
pay outside elements to do so.

Concerning your specific criticisms:
The Biblical Proofs are just that.
You say that they are too speculative but we challenge you to choose a specific point and move with it.
We emphasis over and over again that no one proof is to be judged in isolation from he others, e.g.
In our Introduction to Biblical Proofs
http://www.britam.org/Proof/BibleIntroduction.html
All of this evidence needs to be considered as ONE COMPREHENSIVE WHOLE each part supplementing, complementing, and reinforcing the other. When seen as a unitary body of evidence these proofs to our understanding are irrefutable, as the reader may judge for themself.

and again in our
Introduction to Geographic Proofs
http://www.britam.org/Proof/geo/geoIntro.html#Introduction
All of these indications must be taken as one complementary whole referring to a body of people who are interelated to each other. Other Biblical Criteria (in addition to Geography) must also be considered and the whole then compared with additional standards as explained in our article on Ephraimite Criteria.

You say that our understanding is:
"an opinion based solely on disputed Biblical interpretation".
We agree with you that it is disputed but why are people not disputing with us?
We base our opinion on Biblical Interpreation supplemented by secular evidence.

Regarding
"the corners of the earth".
This argument does not stand alone.
I counted at least 17 other proofs in our list of Biblical Geographic Evidence.
Ends of the Earth and the Most Exalted Places on Earth
In Islands, and Peninsulas of the Earth
Isles of the Sea
Fires in the Isles
Seafarers
Rulers of the Waves
In Many Waters
Tarshish and the Atlantic Ocean
Centered to the West of the Land of Israel
To the North and West of the Land of Israel
Centered to the North
Zebulon on the Shores of the Sea in Holland
"Zerefat" meaning Britain, France, and the North
"Land of Sinim" meaning Australia and New Zealand

We also pointed out that ends of the earth expressly concern Joseph and the lion and unicorn which are the symbols of Joseph.
http://www.britam.org/Proof/geo/geoEnds.html#Joseph
Your criticism of us on this matter does not appear to be a serious one and indeed you give the impression of arguing with us without actually having read all or most of what the article you refer to actually says.

As for when we, "quote a word and interpret its meaning" our interpretations are according to Biblical Hebrew or what the Commentators we quote say. Most of our sources can be corroborated with the references you recommended we use or otherwise.
Our sources however are SUPERIOR to these references.
In all our years of Biblical Interpretation no serious scholar who knows Hebrew has (at least not yet) ever challenged our interpretations.
They are mostly self-evident and can be confirmed by the references we give or by dictionaries.
In case of doubt one can also contact us directly for clarification.

Concerning our backgrounds to the Biblical Proof articles you are correct.
The difficulty is especially compounded if they are viewed through a program other than Explorer.
At any rate we will take steps to gradually change the backgrounds to something more easy on the eye.

Concerning my biography a good portion of it involves Brit-Am
and my work for and with Brit-Am is my primary qualification for continuing to do so.

Pleased with what you read?
Did you benefit from it?
We do this because we believe in it and enjoy doing it.
Your benefit and wellbeing are goals of ours and worthwhile to us in themselves.
Nevertheless,
Brit-Am depends on contributions alongside purchases of our publications
Click Here to make an offering.
Click Here to view our publications.

'It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God or the Bible.'
George Washington

Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.

PREVIOUS ISSUES