"Brit-Am Now"- 392

April 26, 2004
1. Questions on Manasseh and the term "Saxon".
2. Offerings to Brit-Am
3. Circumcision in the UK

1. Questions on Manasseh and the term "Saxon".
Dave Jackson you wrote:
>Hello Yair,
>Can you elabotate a little on the two half tribes of Manasseh?  Is there
>some general reason why they are divided from each other and when did this
>occur?  Which half will lead in returning?  Where are two halves today?
>I have one additional observation/question.  I am not completely satisfied
>with either the standard historical explanation or the Brit-Am suggestion
>as to where the name Saxon derived from.  Historians say it is from a saex
>-- a sword-like weapon that the people carried.  I don't think a tribe
>would name itself after a weapon.  Tribes are usually named after a
>progenitor, or perhaps a place-name, or often simply the term in their own
>language for 'human', such as the German Alemann (All Men).
>A sword requires some level of technology to manufacture and presumably
>they weren't nameless until then.  If there is a connection between Saxon
>and a saex, it seems more likely that the weapon was named for the tribe
>instead of the other way around.
>Brit-Am suggests that it may be from Isaac, as Issac's sons with the I
>dropped to become Saacsons --> Saxons.  Why would this tribe, which is
>from Joseph through Ephraim and/or Manasseh, name itself for Isaac rather
>than say Abraham, Jacob, or Joseph?  Picking Abraham's son Isaac sounds
>rather arbitrary since he would have equally been the progenitor of all 12
>of Jacob's sons.   Also, the suffix 'son' is a Germanic/Scandinavian
>word.  (I know that the Hebrew for son is Ben.)  The nascant Saxon tribe
>would have had to remember their descent from Isaac for a long time before
>they integrated it into a newly-acquired German word to form a tribal
>name, wouldn't they?
>Thank you for your explanation.
>Dave Jackson

a. Regarding the two halves of Manasseh we spoke of this in our book "Joseph".
One half was east of the Jordan and the other half to the west of it.
According to the Midrash it will be people from Gilead in Manasseh who will
lead the return of the Lost Ten Tribes. We traced these people historically
to the west
and north of Britain and from there to the USA especially the "Celtic"
areas of the Old South and West including the so-called "Bible-Belt".
These areas also include important elements from Ephraim and other areas
and much more
work needs to be done on this subject. We have not even scratched the surface.

b. The name "Saxon".
Strictly speaking we never said:
"Issac's sons with the I dropped to become Saacsons --> Saxons".
Though it may be correct.
It sounds like you have confused us with an article from  old British
Israel literature
though we too have said something similar in the past.
The British Israel organization was once a very positive entity with good
researchers and a dynamic
public image. They did a lot of good but then anti-semitic free-thinking
elements crept in
and they have been going downhill ever since. Nowadays you can read one of
their publications
and hardly find any mention of "Identity" whatsoever.  It is quite sad and
unfortunate in a way
since they could have done much good. Now they are a negative quality with
a negative image.
Getting back to the name:
I agree with you
that the Saxons gave their name to the weapon rather than the opposite.
The early Scythians also had a weapon (a short sword) of their own that was
named after them
and so did the Franks.
The Anglo-Saxons believed they were descended from "Seax" so Saxon may
indeed mean
"Seax-sons" though similar names associated with the Scythians were also known:
There was "Sacasene" in Armenia; Saksin (The Khazar capital) also known
later as "The Saxon city"
and a Saxone group by the shores of the Black Sea.
The Saxons were offshoots of the Scythians:
we spoke of the name Isaac (and other names of the forefathers) ]in
Biblical Proofs no 112-113-114. Isaac, Jacob, and Israel
Genesis 21:12 - Isaac:  Scythians (Isaac-Gulu, Ishkuza, Zohak, Saca, Sak,
Saksin, Seax, Saxon)
The Scythians frequently let an initial vowel slip so that Isaac became Sac
or Seax.

  Names given to the Scythians (Isaac-Gulu, Ishkuza, Zohak, Saca, Sak,
Saksin, Saxon) and to the Saxons who settled England were derived from the
name Isaac.

An additional point is that the Ten Tribes are expressly referred to as
"House of Isaac".
"THE HOUSE OF ISAAC" meaning the northern Ten Tribes. Spelled with an "s"
(or "sh") sound (according to the northern dialect) instead of the usual
"Tsedeh". This makes the transition from "Isaac" to Saxe" or "Saxon" as in
"Anglo-Saxon" much more feasible. People sometimes criticize these types of
derivation but they are reasonable. "Sak" in the Iranian area was a
recognized nick-name for somebody named Isaac as well as being a term
applied to the Scythians.

An important point in the Hebrew language when applied to the Ten Tribes is
Amos uses the form "Yis-chak" instead of the usual (and more correct)
hebrew form
This  form "Yis-chak" is found only in
Jeremiah 31:26, Amos 7:9   7:16 and Psalms 105:9
in Psalms 105:9 it appears to refer to all Israel though it may well be
as applying especially to the Northern Tribes. In the other three instances
the name
is applied specifically to the Ten Tribes and may reflect their own
dialectical pronunciation
and a term they used for themselves.

One more point worth repeating is that this proof and all
like proofs are not to be considered in isolation but rather taken into
account together
with all related evidence,
Suppose it were to be claimed that "Joe Smith" who left Alabama in 1961 is the
same "Joseph Smith" who appeared in New York in 1962. Taken alone this is a
but it could also be said that the name is a common one and could belong to
a lot of different people.
You then check the names of his wife and children, physical descriptions,
accents, profession, etc
and the more correspondences that are found the stronger the certainty
becomes. Finally the
identity  of  "Joe Smith" with "Joseph Smith" reaches a level of certainty.

2. Offerings to Brit-Am
Recently we sent out an appeal. I mentioned our need for an additional
computer since when composing the appeal
the computer crashed as it frequently does and we spend more time fixing
it, etc, than we can justify . We need an additional computer for a variety
of reasons not only due to the mechanical inadequacies of the present one.
We may have to obtain another computer within a week (which seems likely)
or we may stretch it out for much longer but sooner or later the step will
have to be taken.
The point however is NOT the computer but the whole operation.
An ongoing endeavor has ongoing costs. If it is not the computer it will be
something else.
If you give to Brit-Am do so because you believe in it.
Do not give if this will cause fiction with your family or others or at
least think twice (or thrice) before doing so.
If you cannot give anything or do not wish to, do not worry about it. Most
of our subscribers are in such a category
and merely by hearing our message you are helping us to fulfill our task
just as we are helping you (or hope we are).
On the other hand please read our appeal with favor and a good eye:

>Urgent message to all those who wish to help Brit-Am.  We are requesting
>those who can to please contribute as much as they can to the
>Brit-Am  fund. There is a contribution button for PayPal on the following
>page for those who wish to contribute instantly using their PayPal account
>- this link is at:
>For those who do not have a PayPal account you can send the money to Yair
>direct or open an account at: <http://paypal.com>http://paypal.com they
>are world-wide so it shouldn't be any problem and they use Master Card,
>Visa, checking accounts and more. Let's all help to keep Brit-Am up and

3. Circumcision in the UK
The following extracts are taken from a site which is a bit off-beat
and not exactly our style but the information is interesting.

Do the British Circumcise?

Here's the situation regarding circ in the UK (England, Scotland, Wales &
Northern Ireland, just in case you weren't sure) from someone who has lived
here, well lived in England anyway, since 1948. Between the two wars
neonatal circ became popular in this country but not routine, it gradually
became less popular after the introduction of the National Health Service
in 1948.
Current statistics suggest that around 25% of men here are circumcised. I
think its probably 20%, or even less seems more likely. Anyone who's
interested can always do a survey in the changing rooms (locker rooms) when
they go swimming or after playing sport, if they are that way inclined.
How come, if we don't cut at birth, are 20 - 25% of guys circumcised. Well
there's plenty of those still around from the generation when it was
fashionable to cut.
OK so there's those who were cut when it was fashionable here and there are
those who just wanted to be cut. But there are plenty of others to make up
the 20 - 25% who have had to be cut for medical reasons and that can happen
at any age from a few days old right though till the end. So this is why
although neonatal circ is almost unheard of here, some kids are cut before
they are old enough to remember. In the US with routine infant circ (RIC)
and so few intact guys, you are bound not to get so many men with problems
that can develop from being intact.
On the subject of class in this country, don't be too hard on the Queen,
apparently she did get the Chief Rabbi in to see to Charles, as our future
King needed specialist attention, although his brothers only got a visit
from the royal physician, also the Queen is a great upholder of tradition
and I think circumcision in the Royal Family began with Queen Victoria's
UK Circumcision Rates
In 1994 a survey was published via Penguin books entitled "Sexual Behaviour
in Britain".
Circumcision rates by age group in the UK:
Age Group
Circumcision rates by religion group in the UK:
Other Christian
Circumcision rates by ethnic group in the UK:
Ethnic Group
All men

The General Medical Council recently stated that 20% (e.g. 1 in 5) of UK
males were circumcised.
The authoritative 'Sexual Behaviour in Britain' (subtitled 'The National
Survey of Sexual attitudes & lifestyles') By K. Wellings et al, (1994)
reports that 21.9% of British men are circumcised. Considerable variation
was found between age and race, but in total:
12.5% of men aged 16-24 are cut
32.3% aged 45-59 are cut
White males are least likely to be circumcised.
I believe it is fair to say that it is common in the UK but obviously not
as common as in US.

About 10 years ago a published paper gave the figure of 12.5% of UK males
circumcised before age 21.  Now the government seems to be reporting infant
circ rates at 14% alone!  Things are looking up!
Allowing for the many boys who will be circumcised for phimosis in later
childhood or adolescence this must mean that at least 20%+ of UK males are
now circumcised by the time they reach adulthood. And of course there are
also those circumcised outside the NHS since private hospitals and clinics
seem to be increasing in the UK these days, and the patrons of these are
the social classes most likely to circumcise their sons.  When one adds in
those boys circumcised for religious reasons, you end up with a large
number of young men who are circumcised in the UK.
Routine circumcision of English boys remained rampant until the start of
World War I when, according to British author Dr. Douglas Baker, M.D., 85%
of the upper class males were circumcised as were nearly 50% of their
working class peers.
Mother England, benevolently sharing her high civilization with her
colonies, exported circumcision along with jurisprudence, etc. The
English-speaking nations became the only Christian nations (besides the
Philippines and the Christian Coasts of East Africa) ever to practice
routine circumcision. Today, the hearty Australian is reportedly 80% shorn
of foreskin while his New Zealand neighbor, heavily clipped until the
advent of his own national health program, still skins the penises of about
40% of his sons. The Canadians of Ontario are supposedly up to 80% trimmed,
while western Canadians are less so and the French Canadians have largely
resisted altering their penises. The South Africans of British ancestry
have remained almost entirely intact to match their Boer fellow-countrymen.
But, the Americans--that is a different story!

The tabloid press recently reported that Prince William was circumcised at
his request at a private surgical clinic in London. No doubt he felt
different than his peers and wanted to be circumcised like them and the
other men in his family.
Apparently Queen Victoria introduced circumcision into the royal family and
this tradition has been carried on ever since.
I think circumcision in the UK has always been something chosen by upper
class families although not necessarily a class issue. Many families in the
30's and 40's from whatever background saw circumcision as a symbol of a
gentlemen that they wished to pass onto their sons.
It is documented in one of the biographies of Prince Charles (I don't now
know which) that he was circumcised by Dr Snowman - a leading mohel of his
time. A Jewish friend of mine confirmed this one day when he said that his
own younger brother was also circumcised by Dr Snowman.
Pictures of Prince Andrew, and reports from his fellow pupils at
Gordonstoun school, confirm that he is circumcised. Prince Edward is widely
held to also be circumcised.
Princess Diana for some reason best known to herself was opposed to
circumcision and refused to allow either William or Harry to be done. There
were reports at the time which suggested that both the Queen and Prince
Philip were very annoyed at this (which would back up the suggestion that
Edward was done).

Believe it or not circumcision of the Royals is actually one of the
questions in the game Trivial Pursuit! According to the answers there - and
what I have read elsewhere - Edward and Andrew are indeed cut, as of course
is Charles.
As regards the claim that the princes were circumcised by a mohel, my
understanding is that the gentleman in question is a leading urologist (in
fact, the urologist who circumcised me insists that he learnt his technique
from the doctor who circumcised the princes) but I believe he is Jewish,
(as was the doctor who cut me) so he may have some formal recognition as a
mohel as well. I believe his name is Dr. Snowman.

Prince Charles was circumcised by Dr Snowman, as were his two brothers
Andrew and Edward. When Charles was born the Queen, naturally, wanted him
circumcised. She decided though that rather than using one of the appointed
Royal doctors she would ask a Mohel to do it as "they have more experience".

Spreading the Brit-Am message is our task.
We do this full time and God willing will continue to do so
as long as necessary.
Your purchases and offerings enable us to work for our peoples

Yair Davidiy
POB 595
Jerusalem 91004

"And I will bless them that bless you" (Genesis 12:15).  

Now Index