FROM Comyns Beaumont's

  • When past history is analysed the pedigree of York - formerly Eboracum or Caesarea, earlier Strato's Tower, and originally
    Babylon or Erech - becomes an assured fact.

  • As it is my purpose to prove to the reader that this “Babylon” really lay in Britain, on whose site now stands the ancient city of
    York, so also the Biblical Assyrians or Asshur “went out of that land”, where Babylon stood, the contention being that they were
    known later as Senones or Belgae, (people of the god Bel or Belin), and were racially Saxons or Sakai, who dwelt between the
    Marne and Seine, and lower Rhine eastwards. They were described as Gauls, and some of their descendants were those who
    settled subsequently in Southern England. The Senna Gallica denoted the River Seine, not a region in Italian Umbria.

  • ...after the death of Alexander, whereby Seleucus Nicator, who obtained Babylon with Syria, preferred to build his new capital on
    the hill-top of the city he named Antioch, also called Seleucia, and left Babylon as a city in decline, its fortifications having been
    dismantled finally by Darius, its palaces left in ruins, and its famous Temple of Bel a mass of litter. The decision of Seleucus may
    be understood in the circumstances, but the fact that Seleucus acquired Babylon as a part of Syria is certainly a clear intimation
    that they went together, and could not have been widely separated. Yet few have paused to consider that the supposed sites of
    these two cities are separated, as though by an ocean, by a sweltering desert of some 750 miles. It is one of those ancient
    geographical facts to ponder over if the reader is still wedded to the fairy tale that these two important sites lay in the Orient. The
    only visible evidence of the alleged Babylon consists of mounds of earth, ruined brick walls, and a few scattered fragments.
    Nothing but orthodox faith supports the claim of this site. The subsequent downhill career of the once-famed city is scarcely
    noted in surviving history. Strange indeed, might it seem, that what had been the world's most powerful and wealthy metropolis,
    by force of circumstances deteriorated into almost a nameless area, largely deserted, its former name all but forgotten. Such,
    however, has been the fate of many famed cities of the past.

  • The Parthians, who for a time dominated Jerusalem and Syria, had previously been subject to the Macedonians and freed
    themselves in the reign of Antiochus Theos, grandson of Seleucus Nicator. The presence of the Parthians in the region of Syria
    and Jerusalem, otherwise in Britain, is explained in an account given by Herodotus of how, at a certain period, a body of
    Scythians, driven out of their homes by the Massagetae, emigrated, crossed the Araxes (Bosphorus or North Sea) and invaded
    the country of the Cimmerians. He gives a clue to the region by mentioning that the Cimmerian country was noted for its
    “Cimmerian Castles” (probably the vitrified forts of Northern Scotland), and one especial ferry (ferry of the Styx?), and states that
    they re-named the land Scythia. Scythia is the classic name for Scotland, although strangely there is no actual region so-called.
    Nevertheless, the whole country became known as Scot-land – or Scythia-land. On the other hand we have Perth-shire, which
    may be said to have derived its name from the Parthi, or Exiles, hence Partheni. Farther south, in the direction of Stirling, we find
    the name Alan or Allan commonly as a place-name, and it is not improbable that the Scythians of Herodotus came from the
    direction of the Aland country. This explanation enables us to realise that because Babylon, Syria, and Jerusalem became for a
    time subject to the Parthians, it reveals no necessary contact with Asia, but the very reverse. It throws a further light on the
    history of the past.

  • To return then to Babylon. This former great city, eclipsed for long by Antioch, was over-run at various periods by many different
    invaders who exploited it and bled it white, as Diodorus says the Parthians did, leaving it in a condition of such poverty that it
    declined even more. Hence we revert to the mysterious “Strato's Tower”, which was described previously. It must have lain in a
    neglected state when Pompey overran Judaea, for we are told that he caused to be restored the maritime cities of Joppa, Dora,
    and Strato's Tower, as part of the terms he laid down to the Judaeans. Herod, who came on the scene as regards this place
    some fifty years later, rebuilt it “after a glorious manner,”provided it with havens and dockyards, and most “sumptuous palaces”,
    regardless of cost – for whatever Herod's faults, he was princely in his lavishness. If it had been allowed to decay for some three
    hundred years as a city whose very ownership was in dispute – for whilst it was actually in Syrian territory Herod nonetheless
    restored it - it may explain the difficulty of its identification. Yet there were clues. It lay where Babylon had lain; it preserved at
    least the memory of a tower, reminiscent of the Tower of Babel; and it was situated on a tidal river which was easily accessible to
    the sea. Herod gave it the name of Caesarea, thus honouring Augustus Caesar, his patron, hence the city of Caesar. It became,
    as was doubtless understood from the first, the metropolis of the Roman overlords, their governing and military centre, for Herod
    in effect ceded the restored city to them, although it was not really his to cede. In erecting Colossi of Augustus and of Imperial
    Rome, he was rendering homage to the Gentiles.

  • Josephus recognised this abasement in regard to Caesarea. He says about it: “The apology which Herod made to the Jews for
    these things was this, that all was done not out of his own inclinations but by the commands and injunctions of others to please
    Caesar and the Romans, as though he had not the Jewish customs in his eye as he had the honour of those Romans." It was a
    very big and expensive operation, which Herod carried out regally. Although it began in 22 BC, it was not completed until 10 BC,
    twelve years later. It seems as though Augustus contributed indirectly to the expense, for in 14 BC, as mentioned earlier, he
    released the Jews in Britain from slavery and payment of tribute. This was a very wise move, for the Roman tribute was always a
    source of anger to them and, as they claimed, it was opposed to their religion to pay taxes to a Gentile ruler. In effect it may be
    said that indirectly Rome footed the bill. As far back as 22 BC, if not before, Augustus must have recognised the latent danger of
    intransigent Jewry, to which Caesarea was the answer. Its position, not far from the frontier, was an effective check on
    lawlessness. From the foregoing one other point emerges. They must have had a responsible government. If Augustus granted
    relief to the Jews in Britain from paying tribute, they must have been recognised as a self-governing state in order to be able to
    collect taxes or have them remitted. As they had kings, this was obviously the case.

  • The restoration and aggrandisement of Strato's Tower to Caesarea, with its accompanying prosperity, led to considerable friction
    between the Jews and Syrians. The Jews claimed privileges because Herod had reconstructed and rebuilt the city and port, whilst
    the Syrians retorted with truth that it had always been their city and still was. This quarrel became more violent as time went on
    and led to fighting and bloodshed, which must have happened in the time of St Peter, whose considerable relationship to the city
    will be shown.

  • Although Caesarea lay actually in Syria at the time in question, it was accounted as on the southern border of Judaea owing to
    Herod the Great having acquired from the Romans the rulership of these parts, to which the Judaeans had no legitimate claim. In
    this same year, AD 44, Claudius ostentatiously proclaimed “Britannia”, including the Orcades, a province of the Empire, and gave
    his young son the title of Britannicus. Henceforth, the erstwhile decayed Babylon was now rejuvenated and glorified as the
    Roman seat of power, as Caesarea.

  • The position of Caesarea as a Jewish city remained equivocal for many years. In AD 55, the long-simmering quarrel between the
    Jews and Syrians (the latter referred to by Josephus as “Crooks”), came to a head with violent fighting and bloodshed. The Jews
    claimed that Caesarea was their city and demanded privileges, because it had been built by Herod, but the Syrians retorted that
    it was a Syrian city long before.

  • The Jews outnumbered the Syrians, but Felix, the Roman procurator, attacked and slew a great many of them; and Festus, who
    followed Felix, found the Jews included large numbers of guerillas, and executed many. This guerilla war was fought so bitterly
    that to all intents and purposes the Jewish rebels were for a time decimated. In AD 65, Florus being procurator, over 20,000 Jews
    were killed in Caesarea and others were sent to the galleys.

  • When past history is analysed the pedigree of York, formerly Eboracum or Caesarea, earlier Strato's Tower, and originally
    Babylon or Erech, becomes an assured fact. There it stands today, situated in the south of the Northern State in what was then a
    “No Man's Land”, yet threatening the northern capital, a city built in a flat plain, with a river not far distant from the sea, and tidal
    all the way. With Edinburgh, the original Jerusalem, this formerly decayed city offered obvious powerful strategic advantages to
    the Romans and enabled Herod to gratify his ebullient character.

  • The identification of York as originally Babylon, then as Strato's Tower, and finally as Caesarea, leads us to another clue of
    considerable interest and importance to historians and many others. We know that St Peter was associated with Caesarea. Was
    he also with York? This important subject possesses a considerable bearing on the origins of Christianity.  St Peter, Chief of the
    Apostles, was no stranger to Caesarea. Most of his life after the crucifixion was spent in preaching and converting Gentiles as
    well as Jews in Jerusalem, Antioch and Caesarea. In his Epistle to the Galatians (2: 11), St Paul mentions that Peter visited the
    flourishing church of Antioch in Syria, but he does not mention Caesarea. Peter mentions it himself but as we shall see refers to it
    as “Babylon”, as it could justly yet be termed.

  • It has always mystified ecclesiastical students that Peter concludes his first Epistle to the Romans with these words: “The Church
    that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus, my son.” (I Peter, 5: 13) Why did he use the
    words “at Babylon”?  My readers, of course, can furnish the solution: Caesarea was Babylon, and St Peter's main mission among
    the gentiles was there, in Caesarea, otherwise York. To be meticulously correct, Babylon was the correct name for the Saint's
    mission and activity on the left bank of the Ouse, which was Babylon; whereas the right bank, where stood originally Borsippa,
    was later the Roman capital Eboracum or Casarea, a colonia. This compels the question, did St Peter become the first Christian
    Bishop of York? Archaeological pointers and place-names fully suggest it. East of the present noble Minster is Petergate, leading
    to the entrance of the Minster, and adjoining the Gate are High Petergate and Low Petergate, while in the same neighbourhood
    is placed the Bedern, originally the Peterna, in past centuries definitely associated with the Apostle. York in fact teems with
    nomenclature relating to the Apostle. Athelstan erected St Peter's Hospital in the tenth century on his conversion to Christianity.
    Also notable is St Peter's School, and, in addition to St Peter's church, there were exceptional privileges which continued until a
    recent period, entitled the Liberty of St Peter (the enclosure originally to the Minster area); St Peter's Prison; Peter's Pence, and,
    in connection with the Liberty of St Peter, an ecclesiastical regnum in regno, whereby the Church authorities within its own
    bailiwick were an independent body. There can be no doubt that the ecclesiastical supremacy of York was unique in the early
    days of Christianity, and we find all the place-names relating to St Peter exist in the vicinity of the present minster sacred to the
    Apostle, such as Petergate; the Dungeon (discovered in 1816), on the site of a former chapel of St Sepulchre; also Peter Prison,
    and the Hall of Pleas for the Liberty of St Peter. They must have been instituted at an early date when the Liberty was
    established, yet to contend that the earliest Church of St Peter was erected in the centre of a military fortress, of which no sign or
    indication has been found, renders its site very doubtful.

  • A remarkable feature of ecclesiastical York is its ancient city seal. Allen describes its obverse as showing St Peter, with his cross-
    keys, standing between two angels, each holding a candle, with the inscription: “S B I PETRI PRINCIPIS APOSTOLOR”which may
    be interpreted as: SEDES BRITANNIS INSULIS PETRI PRINCIPIS APOSTOLORUM: The See (or seat) in the British Isles of Peter,
    Chief of the Apostles. Its reverse depicts an edifice with three towers or turrets and one larger inscribed: “SIGILLUM CIVIUM
    EBORACI” (The Seal of the City of Eboracum). The implication of these claims appears unmistakable, for the sense is that St
    Peter was the Bishop of York and that here was his Seat or See. It refutes the claim of Rome, which was not recognised by York
    before the eleventh century. Such a city seal could not have been designed and approved centuries ago without a very strong
    proof of its correctness as to St Peter. History indicates how anxious the Vatican became, in the centuries following Constantine,
    to get York to conform, regarding it as the most important of the primatial cities. It was always ear-marked for an arch-bishopric
    directly it joined the Roman communion. And then it beatified St William, in order to eradicate St Peter where possible.

  • When we summarise these factual matters and recognise that York was originally Babylon, then Strato's Tower, then Caesarea,
    we can fully understand why St Peter used the word Babylon and also the words, “The Church that is at Babylon, elected
    together with you,” meaning the Roman Colonia who had approved of his mission, like Cornelius and possibly many more. The
    Arms of the ancient Minster stand out as a challenge to those who conform to the belief that St Peter and the Apostles were
    teaching Christianity in the Near East. They further indicate the importance of the early church in York, where St Peter
    established himself, with his son Marcus, leading to the belief that here he spent his declining years.

  • We know that the Romans were succeeded by Saxons (originally Syrians), and that in 627 the first York Minster was said to be
    built. Edwin of Northumbria, converted to Christianity when he married Ethelburga, was baptised in a little wooden house “on this
    spot,” says the Official Guide, and he built a stone church round it, but “not a trace remains of either of these little churches, nor
    is it known exactly where the site if either of them was.” Later two other churches were erected on the site of the Minster, one in
    767-780, which was destroyed by William the Conqueror, and on its foundation a massive Norman church was built between
    1070-1100; finally, from approximately 1220 onward, the present Minster was begun.

  • Another York antiquity whose past history is mysteriously confused is Clifford's Tower. Situated adjoining the present Castle
    (successor of previous fortresses and now a museum), on the left (or Babylon) bank of the Ouse, opposite the Old Baile, stands
    this strange tower on an artificial mound 40 feet in height, 360 feet in circumference, and of peculiar design. Prof Hamilton
    Thompson, in his work Military Architecture, terms it “a tower with a fore building.” The latter outer part or central portal was said
    to have been repaired or erected by Robert de Clifford in about 1250. In 1190, it is said to have been the scene of a massacre of
    Jews, who were then numerous and disliked. A mass of Jews threatening the Tower, who were consequently massacred, may
    present a clue to its history.The Jews present another significant sidelight on York. Canon Raine opines that they “possibly found
    their way to York at a very early period.” As we have seen, they claimed Caesarea as their city although the Syrians denied it, but
    they were numerous and wealthy. They had their quarter in Jubbergate and their burial ground at Jewbury. Tradition says that
    they had their own synagogue, later named St Dyon's (Zion?) Church, probably on the site of St Sampson's church in the former
    Jewish quarter. They were both disliked and feared. Archbishop Egbert (circa 734) forbade any Christian to fraternise with them,
    and later they were expelled. London (Damascus) also at an early time possessed a large Jewish population; as also did
    Leicester (Lystra) and Derby (Derbe).

  • The Danes, who made many raids and invasions upon York, were also called Jutes, said in an ancient Danish record to be Jews
    of the Tribe of Dan, who migrated to Denmark at a long distant time. It was they who called the former Eboracum Yorvik or Jorvik,
    a variation of its original name of Erech, derived from Hercules (or Herakles); also Erc or Eric. Hence the name Jericho. Thus
    York, with Edinburgh, offers the most amazing clue to the true course of world history through the ages.

  • Without any wish to complicate the vicissitudes of York under its various names and rulers, as Erech, Babyon, Strato's Tower or
    Caesarea, there is one other point of significance of which it is essential to  mention. That is, as Jericho, another Biblical name
    for York, which was Syrian and never an Israelite city at all. If Erech and Babylon were one and the same, it explains the
    derivation of York (or Jorvik) with Herc(ules) or Herac(les), the great semi-divinity. Similarly Jericho, as (J)ericho, is related,
    variations being doubtless in accordance with the various dialects of those who inscribed them. And Jericho occupied this self-
    same region.

  • But what of York's other name, Ebor, Latinised into Eboracum? In British traditions, it was founded by Ebrauc, “a man of tall
    stature and of marvellous strength,” a description immediately suggestive of Nimrod. This Ebrauc, we are told, named it Caer
    Ebrauc after himself, who also founded Mount Agnedh (Edinburgh), and the city of Alclud (Dumbarton), which legendary origin is
    placed by Geoffrey as in the time of King David of Israel. According to the same Geoffrey, Ebrauc himself reigned in York, and
    his sons, “under Assaracus departed in a fleet to Germany, subdued the barbarian people there and obtained that kingdom.”
    This Assaracus would appear to correspond with Asshur who “went forth” from Babel and Erech and built Nineveh and other
    cities. The name Ebrauc is of course related to York as the origin of Ebor and Eboracum, being originally derived from Boreas,
    the North. Ebrauc seems, in fact, to be an eponym for Nimrod. In both Babylon and York later this root Bor survived, for the new
    city or suburb which Nebuchadnezzar built preserved it in Bor-sippa, and that same area, which originally was inhabited by the
    Chaldean magi, especially those, as Diodorus tells us, who studied astronomy, was doubtless occupied far later by the Romans,
    and was the real Caesarea. Raine says that from the right bank of the Ouse to Micklegate Bar, and from Clementhorpe to North
    Street postern, the area must have been filled with public buildings and private residencies of which numerous fragments have
    been found, including tessellated pavements and public baths. “Everything testifies to the presence for a considerable period of
    a very large population.” It was strongly walled and points to its having been the aristocratic and most important area of the city.

  • Jericho, for its part, remains always a mystery city in Biblical records. Except for its invasion and overthrow by Joshua, it played
    no part in Israel's history. The only notable reference to it is that when David had designs on Rabbath-Ammon and his
    ambassadors were roughly treated, having their beards half cut off and their nether garments slit off them, he told them to stay in
    Jericho and keep out of the way until their beards had grown, as they were ashamed to show themselves in so ignominious a
    plight before their own people (II Samuel 10: 4-5). Joshua's invasion and siege belongs entirely to the (pre-)Exodus period, which
    was that of Moses, and relates to the time of the Great Catastrophe. Joshua was a soldier of Moses and from other indications it
    would seem that the Assyrians attacked and destroyed Jericho - or Babylon - but a little later all the invaders fled away and
    returned to their homes following the loss of their vast army, and encamped not far from Jerusalem, as related in my book Britain
    - the Key to World History. Joshua (Joshua 1: 4), according to the text, was told by the Lord to cross the River Jordan: “from the
    wilderness and this Lebanon (Mount Snowdon), even unto the Great River, Euphrates (North Sea), all the land of the Hittites
    (Heth or Syrians), and unto the Great Sea (Atlantic), towards the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.” As I interpret these
    words, Jericho was Joshua's special objective, approaching it from North Wales and marching to the North Sea. He sent two spies
    who entered the city and lodged in the house of a harlot named Rahab (2: 1). The house was built on the top of the wall which
    surrounded the city, and the spies were let down by a rope and escaped. The walls were immensely high and strong, and, with
    houses on their summit, compare with those of Babylon.

  • In the siege we have the fantastic explanation of how, with some 40,000 men prepared for battle, surrounding it, seven priests
    blew on their “horns” until on the seventh day the wall “fell flat”, and the besiegers entered and slew all except Rahab and her
    family. Joshua's men sacked it and removed all its treasures in gold and silver (Joshua 6: 9-25).3 Thus it was a wealthy city at
    that time. One of Joshua's followers, a man of Judah, stole a “goodly Babylonian garment”, two hundred shekels of silver, and a
    wedge of gold (7: 21). This dress Josephus describes as “a royal garment woven entirely of gold.” The city's wealth, its king, its
    enormous walls with houses atop, and this “royal garment”, all point to Babylon as the city affected. That Jericho was Babylon is
    clearly revealed by its geographical situation. It stood in a plain, with a river, and is referred to as “the city of palm trees”, a
    curious distinction as though the palm were a special or unusual type related to it. This particular aspect deserves attention, for
    Josephus also says, “This country (Jericho) bears that balsam which is the most precious drug that grows there alone. The place
    bears also palm-trees, both many in number and excellent of their kind.”5 But Babylon also had palm-trees, for Xenophon
    describes that Cyrus, in his siege of Babylon, dug a deep trench and built towers upon the river-bank, “laying their foundation
    with palm-trees not less than a hundred feet in length; and palm-trees, that are pressed by a weight, bend up under it like asses
    used to carrying loads.” Observe that they were long trees, and that their soft wood made them easily pressed into position.
    Babylon, like Jericho, thus possessed plenty of palms. But what did the ancients intend by these “palm-trees”? The palm we know
    flourishes in hot, sandy soils, but in Josephus' works we are frequently told of snow, cold, and ice, in Syria, Judaea, and Galilee,
    and although our northern climate has deteriorated and become more damp and moist through the ensuing centuries, tropical
    palms could not have flourished some two thousand years ago, or we should have found traces. It was actually balsam, called
    balm of Gilead which grew profusely at Jericho, as Josephus describes: “When Pompey had pitched his camp at Jericho, where
    the palm-tree grows and that balsam which is an ointment of all the most precious, which upon any incision made in the wood with
    a sharp stone, distils out thence like a juice.” This surely relates to the balsam-poplar tree, which, regarding which an authority in
    arboriculture who dwells at Beverley, Near York, kindly informs me, “There is the Balsam Poplar tree, common about these parts,
    with fragrant, sticky shoots.” The reference of Xenophon to the tallness of these trees recalls William of Malmesbury, previously
    cited, who, writing of the Fenlands which formerly closely approached York, mentions, “goodly trees which for tallness strived to
    reach up to the stars.” The balsam-poplar is a tall tree, and thrives in damp, marshy soil, as much of the southern Plain of York
    was, formerly.

  • Another clue to Jericho's site is the Scriptural account of how Zedekiah, fleeing from Jerusalem, was captured in the plain of
    Jericho, and was taken to Hamath, where his eyes were put out. Now, Hamath, also called “Great Hamath”, by the River
    Euphrates, indicated a river mouth, and answers to the estuary of the Humber, which long ago covered a much wider area than
    today. A city or town in Hamath named Riblah, may be represented by the present Ripley, an ancient site, a little to the north of
    Harrogate, which Nebuchadnezzar made his military headquarters when he besieged Jerusalem. Pharaoh Neco earlier, from the
    west, went to Riblah and summoned thither Jehoahaz, King of Judaea, after his first victory by the Euphrates, and placed
    Jehoahaz in chains (II Kings: 22-33). Riblah lay in or near Hamath, as it lies in the Plain of York, a very ancient settlement.

  • Another pointer to the site of Jericho was when Pompey marched from Damascus against Jerusalem, on the occasion when two
    Judaean princes were fighting one another savagely for the Jewish throne and High Priesthood. The two had fought a battle near
    Jericho before Pompey arrived, in which the troops of Hyrcanus, the High Priest, deserted him for Aristobulus. They came to a
    compromise which Pompey disliked and the Roman general sent for Aristobulus, who fled from him to a place called Alexandrium,
    in the area of Corea, whence Pompey followed him on his road to Jerusalem. In Yorkshire, as mentioned, was Corrie or Corie,
    near Doncaster, which stretched northwards to the vicinity of Harrogate, whence Coritani tribe possibly acquired their name.
    Some two miles south of Harrogate stands Alexander's Hill, a high, isolated mount on whose hill-top are the remains of an ancient
    military camp of size. Josephus mentions Pompey and Alexandrium as follows: “He came to Corea, which is the first entrance into
    Judea when one passes over the midland countries, where he came to a most beautiful fortress that was built at the top of a
    mountain called Alexandrium, whither Aristobulus had fled; and thence Pompey sent his commands to him, that he should come
    to him.” Pompey's camp was pitched at Jericho (York), and Alexandrium can be represented by Alexander's Hill, some eighteen
    miles west of York in that area. Josephus also mentions the “Citadel Cypros” of Jericho, on the site of the earlier palace, and
    says that Herod built a wall round this castle, “a very strong and fine building”, commemorating his mother, and named it Cypros.
    The description could well apply to the site of the present Castle Museum in the near vicinity of Clifford's Tower.

  • Proceeding from “Jericho”, Pompey led his army onward to Jerusalem, and alluded to “Strato's Tower”, its usual name, but his
    movements indicate that Jericho was simply the Hebrew name for the city. Whether he was commissioned by Rome to put down
    the continuous anarchy and wars fomented by the Jews - as in the case of the two Jewish brothers who, for their own ambitious
    and selfish purposes, had plunged the whole country into war and were destroying lives and property to the prejudice of Roman
    interests - history does not record. What it does record is that Pompey, in this campaign, annexed Syria on behalf of the Roman
    Empire, which included Strato's Tower or Jericho, the later Roman Caesarea. When he had defeated the Jews he issued orders
    to them to improve or reconstruct as strategic ports Joppa, the port of Jerusalem, Dora (lying between Jerusalem and Strato's
    Tower), and also the last-named city. He doubtless had his eye on future needs and decided to make these ports efficient in
    case of future operations. The subsequent Roman internecine wars and struggles for power probably caused the postponement
    until Herod the Great was pressed to complete the work, at least so far as Strato's Tower was concerned. This geographical
    event utterly fails to obtain any adequate explanation by either classical or biblical maps which attribute the terrain as happening
    in the Near East. Antioch, for instance, is placed over 300 miles distant from Strato's Tower or Caesarea, which is given as in the
    south of Syria, as is correct, but also as in the province of Samaria, with which it was not concerned!

  • That Pompey first made Judaea subject to Rome is recognised by Josephus in a lament. He says: “The occasion of the misery
    which came upon Jerusalem were Hyrcanus and Aristobulus by raising a sedition the one against the other; for now we lost our
    liberty and became subject to the Romans and were deprived of the country which we had gained by our arms from the Syrians
    and were compelled to restore it to the Syrians.” When Pompey marched from where York now stands, he may have followed an
    ancient road through Great Driffield, suggested later as the Plain of Dura, later Deira, beyond which lies Dane's Dyke, an ancient
    earthwork of considerable size, stretching across Flamborough Head, adjoining which is Old Dor, where is another earthwork,
    nearby being what a geologist describes as “extraordinary contortions and crumblings in the beds of chalk at Old Dor”,
    suggesting an earthquake in the region. Hereabouts, facing Filey Bay, may be said to have originally stood Dora, known locally
    as “Old Dor”. It can explain the directions given by Pompey as conqueror of Syria. Incidentally, Josephus' words cited above
    prove that Jericho lay in Syria and not Judaea. Such being the case, it indicates how completely the so-called Jericho in the
    modern Palestine, placed about twelve miles from Jerusalem, in the heart of “Judaea”, is untrue to authentic history. It so
    happens that the American School of Oriental Research, at Jerusalem, recently discovered (as this work is being completed)5 or
    claim to have discovered, the ruins of ancient Jericho, near its present modern site. Prof Kelso, its director, declared that
    “nothing like it has ever been found in Palestine.” A few years ago another professor of this School claimed to have discovered
    Ezion-Geber in the Gulf of Aqaba, in Saudi Arabia, a fantastic site, completely incompatible with its biblical history in connection
    with Tarshish.

  • It has been contended throughout this enquiry that Yorkshire was part of the original Syria even though the region was called
    Babylonia, and that Syria's origin was Chaldean. Its priests in the time of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus were Chaldean Magi, who
    detested the Jews, and herein perhaps lies the most potent confirmation of York's prehistoric past, because that city was ruled
    ecclesiastically by the Culdees (or Coli Dei or Chaldeans), up to so late a period as 1154 of our present era. York had in fact
    been the metropolitan primatial religious city, not only of the North of England beyond the Humber and Mersey, but of all
    Scotland, including the Isles, embracing thus the sacred Druidical islands of Iona and Orkney. How came that about?

  • Canon Raine, of York, avers that the earliest known record of the famous Minster was that in the 8th century it was in the
    possession of “secular clergy”, many married, who were called Canons. The earlier Archbishops resided there, and were
    accordingly Culdees also. In the 10th century King Athelstan founded the Minster ruled by such Culdees, and it would seem that
    Archbishop Egbert (circa 734) was himself a Culdee or Chaldean prelate. It is a most interesting and important aspect of early
    ecclesiastical history, for, as Canon Raine stresses, this supremacy was very real, because they - Archbishops, Bishops or
    Canons - performed acts of visitation and consecration over and over again in Scotland.

  • Clearly, then, Christianity was no new faith in York in 600, and in fact it was widespread in Britain by then. It was no light matter
    whereby the prelates of York exercised ecclesiastical superiority over all Scotland including Orkney and Iona, its sacred Druidic
    sites also including Norway. There must have been the strongest historical reasons in substantiation of this position from an early
    period. We know that Rome later borrowed many of her methods from the ancient Druid faith, and indeed, that Rome adopted
    the Christian faith from Britain, not the other way round. In the same way she copied the Culdee trappings - the Flamines, with
    their red cardinal hat, the kissing of the toe of the Pope, excommunication, and other characteristics of the Celtic church. It all
    looks very much as though Rome seized upon all this as far as practicable; covered up this ecclesiastical larceny by changing
    and altering all the sacred sites; transferred them to a region far distant and more convenient, and thus obliterated the true origin
    and site of Christianity. One thing, however, Rome failed in her efforts to accomplish, much as she tried, and that was to remove
    the evidence of St Peter's relationship with York, with the Keys of St Peter, and, it may be claimed, with his church built upon a
    rock (ΠΕΤΡΟΣ).

  • The Culdees or Chaldees deserve some mention as they were the teachers of mankind, even if they were dominating and
    severe, in a younger world. Diodorus tells us that their Magi controlled the worship of the gods and taught philosophy and
    astrology among other things. They interpreted dreams, as Daniel did, and foretold the destinies of men from observation of the
    planets. Strabo says there were several classes of Chaldean priests, particularly the Orcheni and the Borsippeans, who formed a
    caste with fixed traditional lore. The Orcheni were obviously the Orphics of Orkney (Ur or Samothrace), and the Borsippeans,
    inseparable from Babylon, point to the suburb of York, Borsippa, where later the episcopacy made their headquarters. These
    Chaldeans were the Gnostics, teachers of sacred science from the earliest times. That they were Druids is evident.

  • Whatever the virtues or faults of the Celtic or Culdee faith, we can see why it was predominant at York, Chaldean territory as
    seen in a variety of ways including place-names. In its day Chaldea and Syria were one and the same, and England as such did
    not yet exist. The Gnostics and Orphics ... regarded Christ as an Aeon, and the Crucifixion as a mythical event. They regarded
    the Jewish beliefs, acquired during the Captivity in Babylon, as never instituted by the wisdom of the Almighty. They disputed the
    authority of Moses, and questioned that of the Prophets. They considered that the conquest of Canaan could not be reconciled
    with the common notions of humanity and justice, and looked upon the laws of Moses as a mixture of bloody and trifling
    ceremonies. Moreover, they held that the Jewish Jehovah, or J H V H, was between a god and a demon, of capricious
    temperament, implacable and meanly jealous. of his superstitious worship and prerogatives. Some even compared him with the
    principle of evil, and the Gnostic Basilides said he was an “angel only”, a word in distant times signifying fiery emanations, hence
    “consuming fire”.

  • We may see clearly why the Culdees were in York and why York was Babylon as well as the other names attaching to it - Erech,
    Jericho, Strato's Tower, Caesarea and Eboracum - for behind all these had flourished great Babylon, at one time mistress of the
    world, which accords naturally with its position, just as in the same way Edinburgh accords with Jerusalem, Lincoln is exemplified
    in Antioch, and likewise other sites in their rightful positions. Indeed, with care, the situations of the various kingdoms and states
    in the British Isles can be fitted into their true places with a good deal of certainty.

FROM Comyns Beaumont's
Paper background image

York Babylon