Replies

The northern tribes (at least some of their people, as per the Assyrians own testimony only a few thousand), were take to Assyria, viz. Iraq.

It is the testimony of Holy Scripture that "All of Israel" was taken [II Kings 17:18]. I'll go with scripture.

These people if they did not go back to Israel would remain in Iraq.

The Assyrian Empire imploded about 600 B.C. and the Israelites who had been living there in exile for 125 years were not being kept there....although some indeed did remain in the vicinity. Many migrated and this is why you find Peter evangelizing some on the southern shores of the Black Sea during the first century [1 Peter 1:1-2]. This is also why you read Josephus telling the first century world that there are an uncountable number of Israelites living beyond the Euphrates (Iraq and Iran) [Antiquities XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2]. The two tribes yet subject to the Romans (according to Josephus) would be Benjamin and Judah.....Levi not being counted as they were priests, and as such were counted among the other tribes.

The mere fact that scripture tells us that Israel will be an uncountable people....not knowing who they really are would lead me to believe they have long since left the Middle East in great numbers. [Hosea 1:10] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Indo-Europeans/Aryans are not Semitic people. Semites are a separate sub-"race" of the Caucasian "race" -- related to the Aryans and Dravidians, but not the same people. In the Noahic line, you could say they are Japhetic.

I would say Europeans and Hebrews were somewhat similar. According to your statement you think that descendants of both Japhet and Shem are Caucasians?

re: the absorption of Simeon by Judah -- look into the Biblical description of the layout of the tribes (below). It would be inevitable that a larger, more powerful tribe would absorb a smaller one. That is why after the first few kings, you hear no more of Benjamin or Simeon or Reuben. All of these would have been absorbed by more powerful neighbors -- whether those neighbors be Israeli tribes or other related Semitic peoples.

The reason Benjamin became part of Judah was the result of Solomon's sins. The Lord had told Solomon: [I Kings 6:11-13] And the word of the LORD came to Solomon, saying, Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father: And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel. But......this was not to be: [I Kings 11:1-2] But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. So.....The Lord did this: [I Kings 11:11-13] Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe (in addition to Judah) to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen. That tribe was: [I Kings 12:21-24] And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying, Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me. They hearkened therefore to the word of the LORD, and returned to depart, according to the word of the LORD.

That is why after the first few kings, you hear no more of Benjamin or Simeon or Reuben. All of these would have been absorbed by more powerful neighbors -- whether those neighbors be Israeli tribes or other related Semitic peoples You quote from the time WHEN THESE TRIBES WERE GIVEN THE LAND and not centuries after, when I refer. Reuben is barely mentioned during the time of the Judges and disappears during the Kings time. All of the other quotes you give talk about the original time when the Reubenites took the land. The tribe of Reuben would have been like the Manchus of more modern times, completely subsumed into a neighboring group.

You might want to reconsider your position about Reuben. [I Chronicles 5:25-26] And they transgressed against the God of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land, whom God destroyed before them. And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day.

The Books of the Kings and the Chronicles were written after the return of the Jews from Babylon (525 B.C.) and the King of Assyria had taken Reuben.....and the other nine tribes of the north captive 200 years earlier. This would indicate to me that these folks had not been absorbed by Moab and Edom as you had stated and were indeed still around (live and Kicking) during the time of the Judges and the Kings.

The scriptures only mention a number in thousands leaving Israel. do you think it would be so easy for bronze age peoples to forcibly migrate all people from a hilly, mountainous land like Israel?

The Assyrian Empire didn't "implode" - it was tken over by another, related Semitic people: the Babylonians.

The Israelites were related to both Assyrians and Babylonians; they spoke mutually intelligeble languages and their cultures were similar. They would have been assimilated. The reason the later Judeans did not assimilate into the Persian empire is because the PErsians are aryans like the Celts, Germanics, Indians, Slavs, etc.with quite a different language and culture compared to the Semitics

Peter went evangelizing to later Jewish communities who travelled via the Persian, Alexandrian and Roman Empires (Empires that emphasised trade rather than tribute as the Assyrians did). There were Jewish (as opposed to earlier Israelite) communities.

I would say Europeans and Hebrews were somewhat similar.

Arabs are more closely related to Hebrews than Hebrews are related to any Indo-Europeans.

The mere fact that scripture tells us that Israel will be an uncountable people....not knowing who they really are would lead me to believe they have long since left the Middle East in great numbers.
Any northern tribes would have been majorly retained in the blood-lines of Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, etc and through inter-marriage to the Iranis, Armenians, Turks, Greeks etc. The "purest" lines would remain in the Middle East.

Benjamin, Simeon were assimilated into Judah due to natural pressures for smaller similar groups to merge into larger, more powerful relatives. Ditto for Reuben merging into the similar culture of the Moabites