Nederlanders & Friesen
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Tdb91JzmV4...tribes5thC.jpg
The belief that the Dutch people, or people of the Netherlands, particularly the Frisians of the province Friesland, are descend from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. Adriaan van der Schrieck (1560–1621) a Flemish language researcher in 1614 first made this identification: "...the Netherlanders with the Gauls and Germans together in the earliest times were called: Celts, who are come out of the Hebrews."
Dutch Israelism can also be traced back to the 17th century historian Matthew Smallegange (1624–1710) who wrote the Frisians descended from the ancient Hebrews in his Cronyk van Zeeland ("Chronicle of Zeeland").
The only key work on Dutch Israelism to date is Strange Parallel: Zubulun -The Netherlands A Tribe of Israel (1984) by Helene Koppejan, In her book Strange Parallel, she notes that the early proponent John Wilson in 1837 had identified the Israelite Tribe of Zebulun with the Dutch people
Those who write about the Lost Tribes are quite unanimous about the identity of the Dutch as Zebulunites. Zebulun's prophecies (Ge 49 & Dt 33) have such a strong focus on a tribe living off the sea. The Bible is supported in this by the apocryphal Testament of Zebulun (from The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs) in which the very first sailing-boat is ascribed to Zebulun and in which Zebulun encourages his tribe to be compassionate. Love for water, for the sea, and compassion for fellowmen are strong national characteristics in Holland. In Deuteronomy 33, Issachar shares Zebulun's prophecy concerning maritime and naval blessings. In the Testament of Issachar, the patriarch Issachar calls his tribe to simplicity and goodness (eenvoud, recht-door zee!) and encourages his descendants to breed cattle! With Zebulun around, Issachar cannot be far away.
The North Sea Germanic classification problem reveals a flaw in the nineteenth century heritage of Germanic linguistics, widely felt to be one of the most solid and thoroughly researched areas of the whole human sciences. This has to do with the relationship of Anglo-Saxon and Dutch. Thus, in Krahe’s standard university textbook of the Germanic languages, (originally 1942?), AS and Frisian are placed together in one branch of West Germanic, with Dutch in a separate branch. However, a quite different classification is defended in works by Klaas Heeroma and Thomas L Markey, where Dutch is shown as closer to English than Frisian. This affinity of English and Frisian is represented as the product of marginal archaic retention, as waves of innovation give an appearance of unity to spatially central dialects, and spatially marginal dialects miss out on the innovations and thus appear closer to each other only by what they omit.
New research dissolves the Old Saxon/ Anglo-Saxon bond, so that again Old English is closer to Dutch than to Saxon as spoken in Saxony. The change owes much to a revolutionary 1955 paper by Hans Kuhn. The linguistic gap between Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon suggests that the first English did not set out from Denmark and Saxony, but from the South Netherlands and the Pas de Calais - the ‘litus saxonicum’. They probably lived in Angeln and Saxony at an earlier date, but migrated to the Flanders area as a staging-post and sailed to England from there.
This result provides an explanation of the finding in topic 11 that the Anglo-Saxons came from the south Netherlands and not the North (or from the region between Frisia and Denmark). Heeroma gives powerful reasons for thinking that the whole Netherlands spoke a dialect resembling Frisian in early times, say the 5th and 6th centuries AD; that France, and the Frankish of France, were mighty sources of cultural authority already then (or soon after), and that waves of linguistic influence spread out from there and gradually southernised the Frankish speakers of the regions north of the Meuse; and that this was the origin of the Dutch:Frisian linguistic boundary. Heeroma gives excellent reasons for identifying quasi-Frisian (better: Ingvaeonic) relict features far to the south of what is now Frisia. England, for reasons not hard to identify, was relatively immune to these waves, and so acquired a peripheral and archaic character in relation to the Frankish speech area, which in time left it in the same category as Frisian - although at an earlier stage they were not the most closely related dialects.
http://www.originofnations.org/books...mposite%29.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Israelism
http://uuidsith.blogspot.nl/2011/08/...ection-in.html