Talk:British Israelism

I can't find Pierre Le Loyer's Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. I don't think the book actually exists. Ariehkovler (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The author is real, but I can't find this either. I'm thinking it wasn't actually a book, but a paper or something, if it exists at all. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 09:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

So I'm fairly sure that Pierre Le Loyer didn't write it because he wrote a book has an alternative theory. l'Edom, ou les Colonies iduméanes, en l'Asie et en l'Europe proposes that some European peoples are descended from Idumeans, Edomites. Also, Pierre Le Loyer was a big Catholic and the Le Loyer mentioned in the article is supposedly a Huguenot. Different guy, or just a completely fake source? Ariehkovler (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ariehkovler: Not sure where you're getting the "Pierre" part from. Ten Lost Tribes of Israel was written in 1590 by M. Le Loyer, and that is confirmed by more than just the two sources that are cited in the article (Brackney and Fine). @Slatersteven notes two additional sources below, and I know of at least two more that I have (Tobolowsky's The Myth of the Twelve Tribes of Israel and Ecumenical Perspectives Five Hundred Years After Luther’s Reformation by Doyle, Mannion, & Dedon). ButlerBlog (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

M. Le Loyer presumably has a first name and is described as a magistrate. I suppose there could be two people with the same name who were both French magistrates and who both wrote about Middle Eastern origins for the Western European peoples, and only one of them appears in any primary records. But it does seem a little unlikely?

I'd also note btw that Le Loyer's "the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel" doesn't seem to even be referenced in French. It's only mentioned in English books. Bit odd if it exists. Ariehkovler (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we can trust that he was M. Le Loyer and not Pierre. There must be a reasonable chance that the M. there is, in fact, just Monsieur. That Pierre Le Loyer was active at the same time might suggest that he is who is meant, although whether any such work of his can be found, I'm unsure. My suspicion is that people are thinking of his theories about the Hebrew language in such sources as Edom, ou les Colonies d'Idumée (1605) and seen in other works such as La Néphélococugie ou La Nuée des cocus (1579) (a comedy). Le Loyer believed that all languages derived from Hebrew and argued that the etymology of all kinds of French words, place names, even colloquialisms, were etymologically derived from Hebrew (this was before a modern study of philology as a science, you understand). He also had grand ideas about Hebrew that are all quite interesting but exceedingly fanciful. It would not altogether surprise me if he wrote something on Franco-Israelism (it would surprise me if it was British Israelism) but although it is possible he did so, my guess is that the proto-philology is what people are thinking of, and particularly Edom, ou les Colonies d'Idumée (1605), as that posits a migration of the Edomites into Europe.

A further complication arises because there is another Huguenot writer, a little later, who did write about the identity, and that was Jakob Abbadie who wrote of it in Le Triomphe de la Providence et de la Religion (1723). I think the two have become confused. Abbadie became Dean of Killaloe, in Ireland, and the British Israelism identity is much more plausibly found in his work than in Le Loyer's. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

[] []. But that is it, so maybe made up. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

hard to know what to do with this when a load of modern books on the topic talk about this work, so there are sources everywhere referencing it but no sign of it or its author. Ariehkovler (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

No its not, that is why we have wp:rs. Professional scholars have access to sources we would have difficulty finding. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Please review WP:SCHOLARSHIP. We're going to err on the side of academic sources when available. The Tobolowsky work (noted above) is published by Cambridge University Press. Of the sources used in the article, Brackney is a professor and used to chair the Religion dept at Baylor, and Jonathan Fine is a professional researcher and academic (and PhD). I think we can take their word for it. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to make any edits, don't worry, I know how things work around here. But it's also very clear that this source doesn't actually exist.

I'm writing a book that very briefly covers this topic and I want it to be accurate, so I'll reach out to those academics directly for my own research. Ariehkovler (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I suspect what you mean by "doesn't actually exist" may be "no longer exists", as in "lost to history" (as opposed to "is made up"). Sure, that's possible. Is that what you're trying to suggest? ButlerBlog (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The alternate French title of Les Dix Tribus Perdues Retrouvées might be used in your search for it as well. A good start would be the British-Israel World Federation. That type of thing is in their wheelhouse, so if an extant copy exists, BIWF might know about how to confirm its existence (or they might also confirm that no known copies exist). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Or we go by what RS say, which is that it existed. Rather than user's own OR. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is an essay, not a suicide pact. We are not duty bound to include information from the sources where it is reasonably doubtful that the sources are correct. WP:TRUTHMATTERS - sources can be in error, and although it would be WP:OR to correct the source in our article, we are perfectly entitled just to leave the information out. We have an attributed statement that has been there for 9 years, but other sources cast doubt. Rick Sherrod, in 1997, wrote:

There is reputed to be a volume entitled 10 Lost Tribes in French by Counsellor Le Loyer published about 1590. I have never been able to locate a copy.

Brackney repeats the claim, which is disseminated widely in BI literature, but does not state his sources. Fine has the more detailed claim that we are following here, calling Le Loyer an Huguenot, but his footnote is not a reference to the work but reads:

Modern adherents of this idea also mention King Alfred’s Doom Book (893 CE) and the 1320 Scottish Declaration of Arbroath as their earliest sources.

This, of course, doesn't reference the claim at all, but indicates that he may be reporting the writings of "Modern adherents". And, indeed, modern adherents do mention Le Loyer a lot. But they all provide the same quote, which is somewhat implausible for this French writer:

"The Israelites came to and founded the English Isles".

Another alleged review of the alleged work, cited to the Petit Parisien on 24th June, 1913, states:

He has found the Israelites, and that to-day they form the English People.

But this claim, found only on this page contains an in text citation (Balaicius, p. 123) but has no bibliography! (But the reference above suggests it refers to Uncovering the Mysteries of Your Hidden Inheritance which is indeed where this came from). Nevertheless Robert Alan Balaicius is a proponent of the BI identity and wrote extensively on it. His work is pseudo-historical, and he is not a reliable source.

As I was writing this, Ariehkovler confirmed below some additional scepticism from academics. There is probably something to be said about Le Loyer's contribution to BI thought, but the claims being credited to him make no sense, and do not verify. We should not include it just because a couple of authors have reported the existence of this book without themselves apparently verifying the information they are giving. We don't need to give a WP:OR correction - let's just either take the claim out, or else reword it as a claim made by BI writers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we should follow Cottrell-Boyce, A. (2021) Israelism in Modern Britain. Routledge, which has no mention of Le Loyer, but has:

According to British-Israelist tradition, the first figure, after the Assyrian crisis, to recognise the true identity of Israel was Jacques Abbadie.

Abbadie was a French theologian who was appointed as minister of the Huguenot church in London in 1688 before moving to Killaloe, County Clare, in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution. Abbadie wrote several tracts including one on the subject of ‘the triumph of Providence.’ This text described the fulfilment of prophecy in the advance of Protestantism (page 61,62).

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I have a copy of Cottrell-Boyce, and will take a look later today when I get a chance (actually, I have quite a few of the works mentioned). I presume the Rick Sherrod you mentioned is the Armstrongism Rick Sherrod?

I'm probably inclined to agree with you about starting with Jacques Abbadie, or at least revising the proto-BI info accordingly, but I need to look this over and digest it when my head is not pounding from my (currently) cracked tooth. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that Rick Sherrod. I don't propose we quote from him - just mentioning that he had his doubts a good few years ago. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a tour du force! Thank you. Ariehkovler (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Butlerblog no I mean it doesn't exist at all.

I have been corresponding with Dr Tobolowsky who responded very quickly. He said that "M. le Loyer" is indeed supposed to be Pierre le Loyer (who is not a Huguenot!), but that he also suspects that this work may be invented.

Of course I realise that private correspondence is not a Wikipedia source.

Jonathan Fine died in 2020 so I wasn't able to confirm with him. Ariehkovler (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up and for your efforts. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Read wp:or, this does not raise a reasonable doubt, an RS confirming it would. Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Just posted above. Cottrell-Boyce ignores Le Loyer and begins with Abbadie. We should too. That is a better source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Re: this does not raise a reasonable doubt Oh, it absolutely does, especially if you take the time to read @Sirfurboy's full assessment. I've been looking into this more deeply myself, and I'm presently inclined to agree that we begin with Abbadie. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made an edit based on Cottrell-Boyce. The thus deleted paragraph may be found by reviewing this edit . It remains the case that many writings claim descent from le Loyer, and from King James, so a possible reinsertion of that material might be based on a secondary source that states there are such claims, but the secondary source should be suitably critical of them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Let us know what you find out. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)