We must now turn to examine the nature of the Christian inclination of European Man:
As the floodwaters receded the Ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat, which straddle the Armen-Turkey border in South Eastern Europe. It is from this point that all of the tribes of men would sojourn to the plains of Shinar in modern Iraq, attempting as it were, to return to the Fertile Crescent region from whence they’d embarked prior to the cataclysm. (This option may also have proven appealing on the basis of the rapid onset of the ice age which would have blanketed most of Europe under glacial frost.)
There, in the misguided pursuit of philanthropic unity, they denied the tripartite division of humanity which God had declared by way of Noah’s prophecy. They conspired to employ egalitarianism to trump providence. Free-will was asserted over the Predestination of God.
But God stepped in, scattering the peoples of the earth in groupings of “families, in their tribes and in their nations”. He did so by way of a primary component of culture—language. Language is the starting place for human interrelation; it is the basis for social coherence. God obstructed this coherence not by divisions in class, not generationaly, but specifically along lines of descent. Accordingly, kinship is historically (alongside language) of seminal importance to the issue of social coherence. Near of kin is near of ken.
The bible concludes the story of the first ethnic diaspora with the delineation of nations which would descend from each of Noah’s sons. Beyond this point, the scripture narrows its focus to the line of Shem, through Heber, through, Abraham, through David to the Christ. And it is only at the point of His advent that the scripture again turns its attention to the Gentiles who were to be ‘enlarged’ or ‘grafted in’ as prophesied by Noah.
The question then is what happened to the Japhethites between Genesis chpt.10 and the New Testament? Where had they gone? What had they done? What was the course of providence in the biblical interim which facilitated such fertile soil for the Gospel? St. Augustine dedicated much ink to answering questions of this kind for the purposes of procuring a distinctly Christian History of the world. On this basis all believers have a stake in the para-biblical exploits of the Japhethites. It is the story of God’s superintendent preparation for the institution of the new covenant. It is the story of what Augustine well termed The City of God.
Despite the fact that they have fallen out of vogue with both the Academy and Seminary, there exists a fair body of historical writing regarding the subject of European national origins in scripture. We have the Historia Brittonum by Nennius (8th cent.), An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah into Europe by Berosus (works of a 3rd cent. B.C. Chaldean Preist of Bel translated by Richard Lynche, Gent. In 1601), the Bayerische Chronik and the Deutsche Chronik both by Johannes Turmair (1526), The Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland by Raphael Hollinshed (1587), et.al.
Though these materials have some areas of wide disagreement in regard to which tribe first settled what region, they also share certain areas of unanimity: Of chief importance is that they all agree on the issue that after the scattering of the nations father Noah remained with Japheth’s family.
While reserved skepticism is always healthy when weighing apocryphal or para-biblical texts I would submit to the reader that the notion of Noah tarrying on with Japheth is, under the circumstances defined in Genesis, the most reasonable and likely course of events to be expected. Shem was the eldest son and already a believer; his lot was certain. Ham was a non-believer who committed acts of familial treason (of a sexual nature) and was cursed in his offspring; his lot was also certain. Japheth was not yet a believer but had nonetheless acted honorably toward his father. He was however prophesied to come to the faith, eventually displacing his eldest brother by “dwell[ing] in the tents of Shem”. Shem was the contemporary kingdom but Japheth was the greater stake in the consummation of that kingdom. What had been planted in the people of Shem would blossom among the sons of Japheth. Where Shem corresponds to the old covenant, Japheth corresponds to the new. Under these circumstances, Noah’s persistence with Japheth is credible.
But aside from the myriad of historical surveys, the Noahic European journey has also been a unanimous convention of historic Christendom—be it the Roman Church, the Eastern Orthodox or even the Russian Orthodox, all agree that Noah set out with the Japhethite tribes to subdue the northlands in preparation of the seedbed which would so firmly receive and affix to the Christ.
Infact, this view draws into its scope and harmonizes the broader Classical/ Hellenic history with the bible. It is asserted that many of the eldest Mediterranean cities were founded by Noah, Japheth, Jason (Javan: the Hebrew name for Greece & a son of Japheth) and the Argonauts. Japheth is said (in Hesiod’s Theogony) to have been called Lapethos or Japetos—which in Greek mythology is the name of the Titan father of Prometheus and progenitor of humanity (written of in Homer’s Illiad VII, 479).
In Part I. I alluded to the preoccupations of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein with European myth and folkways as shadows or echoes of the Gospel. The understanding of these things which were apparently common to the Inklings (a small Christian Writers’ guild to which both authors belonged) is that the sons of Japheth retained in their collective bardic culture some shades of the truth undoubtedly disseminated by Noah himself.
This mimetic echo of the true religion is hard to deny in certain quarters of Pagan myth. The Celts worshipped gods in pseudo-Trinitarian matrixes of which Jack Lindsay says:
“Triads were much in favor. Besides the Mothers there was a three-headed god and Lug seems to have had a triple form.” (Our Celtic Heritage pg.102)
This triadic deity concept was the rule rather than the exception both in mainland Europe as well as the Isles. The Triad god concept was even argued for by Plato. Obviously these pagan forms do not square with anything approaching a Nicene standard but they are nonetheless unique amongst the world religions for their Trinitarian similarity.
This similarity of concept is also both apparent and abundant in Norse mythology. In Odinism Odin or Woden was known as the Allfather who, at a prepared moment in history, descend to earth in human form to be crucified on a tree (Despite the near identity of concept, the motive for Woden’s condescension was wholly dissimilar to that of Christ.). Tolkein winks at this pseudo-Christ analogy by his employ of the name Gandalf (LOTR) which was the earthly alias of Woden.
Also of note is Woden’s son Thor: He is portrayed as the personification of virtue and power who bound the Midgard Serpent (also called the Dragon of the Sea—this is very similar to the language used for the Devil in the biblical description of Leviathan). This Dragon would remain bound until the last day at which point he would break free with all the forces of Hell to do battle with Thor and the hosts of heaven one last time. Anyone at all familiar with the book of Revelation will grasp the parallel.
Aside from his war against the the Midgard Serpent, Thor is also said to have been in perpetual battle with Loki the Trickster and that he once strode into Hell itself for the sake of breaking the bonds of hellish control exerted over the world (reflecting even a degree of conformity to the Apostles’ Creed which says that “He descended into Hell”).
Both The Norse and the Celtic religions even seem to have maintained some form Edenic recollection in the Odinist acknowledgement of Yggdrassil (the Tree of Life) and the Sacred Groves of the Celts.
Now someone may say that such comparisons could just as easily be imposed upon other world religions with similar results but they would be hard-pressed to find nearly so dense a web of parallels as are present in the European bardic traditions. (I will exempt the various mid-eastern religions from such a challenge as they developed in perpetuity of direct contact with the recipients of special revelation—Israel) For the sake of fairness, we must compare the relative virtues of European mythos with that of Chinese, African, American Indian or Micronesian. Next to Europe I must give China the high marks simply for their linguistic character for Evil—a man and a woman beneath a serpent-wrapped tree. This is admittedly a significant connection to the Christian view but it is a rather singular note of commonality. Buddhism, Confucism and Taoism have little to do with anything resembling Christianity. Their character for Evil seems so unique a connection that we are tempted to simply chalk it up to Tocharian (the Caucasian inhabitants of old China) influence. No other group even seems notable.
Of course a survey of Flood accounts among the world religions yields better fruit but the sheer ubiquity of such attestations renders them mundane at best. They are simply too common to bear on the question of Christian parallels. None but the European mythologies seem to have preserved any semblance of true religion beyond the deluge.
But the unique echoes which we find of the true faith in the bardic traditions of old Europe are precisely what we might expect of a people uniquely preconditioned to receive the gospel. That predisposition was evident even in their progenitor—Japheth, in that he, who was not yet a believer, still honored his father as you might expect of a believer. God had simply predestined him to a different natural temperament.
“You know pretty clearly now what sort of God it is of which I am speaking to you. If my God exists it was He who was back of my parents and teachers. It was He who conditioned all that conditioned me in my early life. But then it was He also who conditioned everything that conditioned you in your early life. God, the God of Christianity, is the All-Conditioner!…No more than the Ethiopian can change his skin or the leopard his spots can you change your attitude.” (Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God)
This aspect of predestination is a clear consequent of the first of the five points of Calvinism—the doctrine of Total Depravity. No orthodox Christian can deny the innate and immanently heritable attribute of original sin. As human beings sharing in the common descent from the first Man we all exist in a common state of falleness. In that same conceptual vein we all inherit distinguishable physical traits which correspond with our “families…tribes…[and] nations”, which is to say that lineage bears as greatly on temperament, intelligence and personality as it does on the color of one’s skin or the shape of one’s skull. As surely as your son has red hair, he’ll have your father’s temper. It has ever been both joyful and vexing for parents to see their own temperaments passed to their infant children.
And the fact that a child comes out of the womb with an observable personality prior to being ‘taught’ one only further testifies against the Freudian and Youngian Behaviorist theories. We are not born tabla raza. God sovereignly preconditions us to certain tendencies before we ever hear a human voice (prior to any culture). To say contrary is to the Christian, simply Gnostic. It is heresy.
After reading your most educational essay, I went rummaging around in some of my bookshelves, looking for a book I picked up a while ago, that supposedly gave the European genealogies back to Noah. Unfortunately, it’s buried somewhere, and my energy post-knee surgery (yesterday) is not up to the usual.
I thought the book was a little “out there” when I bought it, but after reading your article I am wondering if it’s not really close to the truth.
Thanks, and God bless,
Laurel
My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions! The Secret Rapture soon, by my hand!
Read My Inaugural Address
At = http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman
Well, I’m glad to hear that you’re back on your feet, as it were.
As to the the article, I too have found some ‘out there’ writing on the subject. But in the midst of the various motives of a given set of authors there are gems to be gleaned; or atleast, a compelling argument or two.
One such point of biblical/ bardic correspondence is in regard to the Son of Japheth named Tiras: If Noah remained with Japheth, and Japheth is Japetos (of the Titans), who aided his son Javan (Jason & the Argonauts) in founding the first European settlements, it is no surprise to find the name Tiras preserved as ‘Troy’ and ‘Thrace’. Josephus even tells us that the Thracians were at one time called ‘Tirasians’! They were written of by the Egyptians as being consumate blond & red-headed sea-farers. If they were so distincly Nordic, it is likely that Tiras was himself memorialized among them as the ‘Thor’ of Norse myth. Of course it calls for some speculation but such is the nature of deductive reasoning. With the bible as our first assumption I beleive we make history more coherent than any Secular Anthropologist could dream.
Oh and Secret Rapture, you are exactly as you describe yourself, ‘A Madman’ and I’ll add to that, a Heretic also. You are not a god. You are a man following the path of Satan himself in that you dare exalt yourself to the station which belongs to God Almighty and none other. Repent of your blasphemy Sir– before God snuffs you out.
Thanks for your well-thought out name derivations, Ehud.
Oh, and Secret Rapture, get a life. A real life.
God bless,
Laurel
Hi there–great article i posted your essay, on my blog http://www.doctrinewars.blogspot.com and thanks for stopping by
Ehud,
It’s been far too long! I’ve been far to busy in my studies to post lately, but I hope to soon again. Anyway, fascinating post. I agree with your analysis. Recently, I’ve been kicking around the idea that the white Caucasian race has some degree or measure of Shemitic heritage as well that also distinguishes us from the rest of humanity. I know that might sound particularly “British-Israelist” but there is some evidence that I believe is compelling.
First, it’s not too radical to consider the semitic speaking tribes of the Near East to be Caucasian such as the Berbers, Moors, and at least some of the Jews. I’ve read interesting ideas that the origin of the word “German” comes from the Shemitic Assyrian migrants to Europe from the Middle East.
Another interesting tidbit is the Biblical tribe of Dan. I’ve heard that they may have been at least a component of the historic Phoenician seafaring people that migrated to Europe, founded Thebes, and traveled as far as Spain and the British Isles! An interesting apocryphal passage in the Book of Maccabees states that “It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians (Greeks/Spartans) and Jews (meaning Israelites) are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham.” (1 Maccabees 12:21). There may be some degree of merit to this idea.
It has been pointed out at SWB and elsewhere that many biblical characters are described as being white, fair, or ruddy (Song of Solomon 5:10, Lamentations 4:7, and many others). I think that incorporating the idea that white Europeans have at least a partial Shemitic heritage helps us better understand these passages.
I’m no British-Israelist, or Christian Identity. But some of these observations have merit that in no way obscure our corporate Japhethetic heritage Perhaps this is just another way that Japheth dwells in the tents of Shem.
Hey, good to hear from you S.F.!
As for the Anglo-Israelite or Identity theories– their strengths seem to me to be exclusively historical but not very biblical. Though most of this artical was a survey of historical documents, my approach is concerned with biblical coherence first and history second.
Beyond that, many of the national histories have as a natural ambition, the desire to legitimate themselves as much as possible. This ambition oft times leads to claims of descent or association without clear warrant. But I must confess, I’ve spent more than a few evenings engrossed in readings on the subject of Lia Faile.
Thanks for stopping by and I hope to see you posting again soon.
[…] Providence: Cultural & Biological Part II […]
[…] Providence: Cultural & Biological Part II […]