In Britain the Key to World History, much care was given to show that Abraham originally led the Israelite people from the very north of
Scotland, where was situated Ur-of-the-Chaldees, his city, near Stennis, Orkney, to the plains of Wiltshire settling first in the area of Avebury
Great Circle, a very ancient Israelite temple. The history of the early Israelites was traced until in the 7th year of David's reign they were driven
away by victorious opponents, and trekked to where
Edinburgh now stands. There they built the famous Jerusalem, ultimately destroyed by
Hadrian in AD 136, and the Jews expelled on pain of death. This and other factors in the history of the Jews are followed up to the time of the
reign of Hezekiah, the first Messiah.

How did this error or deception come about? The explanation is that the Bible history of the Jews  -  which contains nothing in the least sacred
to Christianity  -  is that
Moses became subsequently elevated by the Jewish priesthood for their own purposes as their great prophet and
patriarch, when they adopted his doctrines. Yet Jerusalem had never heard of him or his doctrines until in the reign of Josiah, when it was burst
upon that credulous monarch by ambitious priests for the first time. (II Kings 2, 23: 3-13; II Chronicles 34: 14-21) When later the Old Testament
came to be first compiled, at the time of the Babylonian Captivity  -  by Ezra and his assistants, who created Judasim  -  past chronology was
tampered with recklessly in order to convey to the people of Judah that Moses had been their divine prophet who made them the Deity's
“chosen people” ages before, thus giving his ordinances the necessary antiquity  -  besides claiming that their past kings had been defeated or
overthrown because they had run after gods other than Moses' Jehovah.

Josephus says, in his
Antiquities of the Jews, that the plain in which men first dwelt was named Shinar, and that they descended from the
mountains and fixed their habitation in that plain:
“From there God caused them to send colonies abroad to people the earth, and that Nimrod, son of Cush, was the Master who built a tower of
burnt bricks and bitumen to defy God in another flood. The place where they built the tower is now called Babylon.”

The reader may be begged to bear two facts in mind in relation to the earlier times. Our sources of information are derived mainly from Greek
or Roman writers, the works of Josephus, most essential to the historian, are acceptable only subject to certain revisions, for much of his work
in certain ways was doubtless tampered with by the Romans at a later date. Greek writers employed Greek names for men and geographical
sites, as did likewise Josephus, and these names frequently fail to accord with the Hebrew, so require most careful investigation.  Another most
important factor is to recall that when Constantine the Great, as a political and religious act of major importance, established Christianity in the
Roman world of the Mediterranean,  every effort was used to change the venue of past history which related to the Jews and the beginnings of
Christianity and to transfer it to an atmosphere free from prejudice, and thus to enable him to construct a new Jerusalem within the near vista
of the Roman Empire and himself. The problem of how far Christianity was to be linked with the past history of Judaism was a question of deep
concern. Origen, one of the early Fathers, regarded the Deity of the Old Testament as unworthy of worship with its very intolerant Yahweh and

...Moreover, the ancient Jews were not Asiatics, and nor were the Syrians, an erroneous belief responsible for much futile misunderstanding.
The venue of events needs to be transferred bodily to Europe.

Orthodoxy is at the mercy of a period when geography was not a science, with reference works scarce, unknown or misinterpreted, while
behind all lay concealed a deliberate intention to mislead the world for specific reasons. In the early days of Christianity many priceless works
were committed to the flames, with the library of the Ptolemies deliberately burnt by fanatical monks. The Renaissance and Reformation gave
little or no help in these matters.

Josephus is almost the only exception. He is an invaluable authority on the history of the Jews, of whom he was one. His work was allowed to
survive the holocaust because he did not spare the Jews in describing their wars with the Romans. He also paid lavish homage to Rome, as we
know, and after the fall of Jerusalem he accompanied Titus to Rome where he lived and died. Nevertheless there is strong evidence of
tampering and of interpolation in his works in many places. His references to Christ in The Antiquities of the Jews is generally regarded as an
interpolation. There are many such. In one instance we find Titus accredited as saying to the rebellious Jews:
“Have you stronger walls than we have? Pray, what greater obstacle is there than the wall of the Ocean with which the Britons are
encompassed and yet do adorn the arms of the Romans?”

Agrippa is supposed to have said, thirty years earlier, to the rebellious Jews:
“They were encompassed by the Ocean and inhabited an island not less than the continent of this habitable earth.”

Did both think alike about this gem of hyperbole? There were no Roman walls in Britain until after both had long been dead. Agrippa's speech
reeks of interpolation. These are but two of many such examples.

Julius Severus, in 134, was in command of the Roman Legions in Britain, his headquarters at York, then famed as Caesarea. He was
despatched by Hadrian to put down an insurrection of the Jews. We are supposed to believe that the Emperor removed his general from Britain
to the other end of the Empire to fight the Jews. Hadrian himself, who visited York, probably more than once, appears to have directly
inspected the arrangements he had instituted to keep the Jews behind their own wall until they were at length utterly defeated and expelled
from their country. All this happened in Britain.

It is a curious fact but there exists scarcely a recorded trace of hostilities between the Britons and the Romans during the years AD 68 to 134,
in the south, at least. In the north, across the Border, there was never quietude. The Northerners fought with indomitable courage against
great odds, inspired by hatred of the intruders who had struck at their freedom. The victories of Vespasian, Titus, Agricola and Cerialis came
and went, but made little difference to their unrelenting struggle, until the time of Hadrian, who destroyed
Jerusalem (Edinburgh) and its ...
Temple, and expelled the Jews once and for all from their country, and caused them to be dispersed to other parts...

...If Lincoln were Antioch, and
York (originally Babylon) were Caesarea, both in Syria, adjoining the country of the Judaeans (in Edinburgh),
they all fit together into the history, as they must do.  If we go further back, to the first Roman clash of arms with the Jews, it was in 63 BC when
Pompey, who had been fighting in the region of Pontus (the Baltic, not the Black Sea), went to Damascus (London) and compelled the rival
Kings of Judaea, Hyrcanus and Aristobulos, to enter into an armistice. Later he marched towards Jerusalem by way of Corea, on the
southernmost boundary of Judaea (really Syria), and pitched his camp at Jericho (Erech, York), and finally proceeded to Jerusalem, which he
besieged and duly captured. Thus the Jews lost their independence and became for the first time tributaries to the Romans.

The reader here will naturally ask how this can be explained away since we have always been taught that Julius Caesar was the first Roman
ever to set foot in Britain? That depends on what the Romans themselves intended by the name “Britain” or “Britannia”, and also what the
natives in those times generally intended by it. Tacitus, for example, says that Caesar was the first Roman to lead an army into Britain, but his
own works relate solely to the wars of Agricola against the Scots beyond the Bodotra or Forth.2 Boece, the Scots' historian, says that Caesar
invaded the regions about Stirling, and it seems that he did so.3 The name Britain came from the north, originally Pretan, or, as some believe,
Cretan. The Brigantes, who called themselves Britons after Brutus, migrated southwards comparatively late, but their original territories in
Britain were in Scotland, Albany or Albania, which embraced Perthshire, Fife, Stirling, and southwards to the Solway Firth. The various tribes in
what is now England went by their own tribal names under native rulers. Josephus uses Bible names or often Greek names of countries and
cities and people.

This is a very important distinction, which must be appreciated in order to reach a true understanding of past history in Britain.

The name of the Jews in Roman history of the period was carefully expunged, and they appear as the Silures (a variation of Illyrians, their more
classical name); both geographically correct.

It is very strange that there appear to be no Roman records of military movements in Britain from 62 until 71, but there are a few sidelights. In
66 Nero sent Vespasian from Rome to pacify the Jews of Jerusalem and Galilee, but in 69 he left Titus to defeat the Jewish rebels, whose raids
and aggressions had made them a menace to Roman interests.

If we take the subject of the origin of language, admittedly the Chaldean, Hebrew, Phoenician and Greek were all derived from one parental
source. It is surprising to note how closely related to the ancient Hebrew is the Welsh tongue. Leland,  a very learned man, Royal Antiquary to
King Henry VIII, declared that the Cymric language is closely related to the ancient Hebrew and Greek, although these tongues are supposed
to have originated from the other end of the ancient world. Canon Lysons, in Our British Ancestors, claims that 5,000 English words are of
Hebrew origin, and William Tyndale, a translator of the English Bible, says that “the English agreeth one thousand times more with the Hebrew
than with the Greek,” while other philologists have said much the same. The Jutes of Denmark, according to an ancient work,
Vetus Chronicon
Holsatiae, were:
“Jews of the tribe of Dan, and that Jutes, Angles and Saxons were kindred nations.”

If Britain's unknown history throws a new light on Bible history, it can equally be contended that Bible events, or those relating to the Jews in the
works of Josephus, also throw a strong light on this ancient island.

...If we take the subject of the origin of language, admittedly the Chaldean, Hebrew, Phoenician and Greek were all derived from one parental
source. It is surprising to note how closely related to the ancient Hebrew is the Welsh tongue. Leland,  a very learned man, Royal Antiquary to
King Henry VIII, declared that the Cymric language is closely related to the ancient Hebrew...

...It is very strange that there appear to be no Roman records of military movements in Britain from 62 until 71, but there are a few sidelights. In
66 Nero sent Vespasian from Rome to pacify the Jews of Jerusalem and Galilee, but in 69 he left Titus to defeat the Jewish rebels, whose raids
and aggressions had made them a menace to Roman interests. Vespasian went himself to Alexandria to watch evens during Vitellius'
imperatorship. In the intervening struggle between the Roman leaders, we are told that the soldiers n Britain favoured Vitellius against Galba
and Otho but on Vespasian's proclamation the 2nd Legion and others espoused his cause...

...In the year 71  -  Jerusalem fell to Titus in 70  -  we are informed that, with the triumph of Vespasian, the Britons  -  otherwise the Silures or
Jews  -  “found their hopes reduced”. The Brigantes, for one, caused much trouble and Petilius Cerialis, now made Propraetor or Governor by
Vespasian, fought many bloody battles with them, but Pliny, significantly, remarks of this period that nearly thirty years after the Claudian
invasion the Roman army had only extended their knowledge of the country to the vicinity of the Sylva Caledoniae and not beyond. In other
words they had not conquered beyond Stirling...

...I introduced Pompey's invasion for a certain purpose in order to clarify topography. When he marched onward  - doubtless following the
usual Ermine Street which started from “Damascus”  -  on reaching Corea, he made his temporary camp at Jericho, renowned in the Old
Testament as a walled city of great size and strength. Corea lay in the south of Yorkshire, near the Humber. The Coritani were a tribe in
Lincolnshire (also in the Damnia region of Stirlingshire). Whatmore wrongly places Corie near Market Weighton, the name appearing in the Iter
of Ravennas, but it related to where now stands Doncaster, just inside the Yorkshire border. Corrie, or Caer Corrie, now Doncaster, was where
Hengist built his Castle of Corrie, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth
.On this showing, Judaea, in BC 63, extended almost as far south as the Humber. It was, however, in the past, Syrian territory. Of Jericho there
is more to be said subsequently...

...When he was in this region, Pompey decided to to cause certain maritime cities or ports to be repaired, including Jerusalem's port of Joppa,
still a port of Edinburgh; Dora (Old Dor, Flamborough Head, once a port), and Strato's Tower, all properly placed between York and Edinburgh.
Strato's Tower, as Josephus explains, was subsequently rebuilt by Herod as a magnificent city.
He adorned it with harbours and temples, and changed its name to Caesarea, some 40 years after Pompey's conquest. “Strato's Tower” is one
of the vital clues to the past...

...Herod, both admired and hated by the Jews, from whom he mainly derived his immense revenues, rebuilt this city, curiously named, in the
very south of the then Judaea, which adjoined the sea. He erected many buildings of white stone and “most sumptuous palaces”, and laid out
an outer and an inner harbour, always, says the text, sheltered from the sea waves as conveniently near the city, with a double station or
harbour for mooring ships. The entrance from the sea was protected by a mole against the great waves and there were stone buildings and
storage places for cargoes from abroad. For adornments he had set up two enormous Colossi or images, one of Augustus Caesar, the other
of Urbs Roma...

...Strato's Tower did not properly belong to the Judaeans at all. It lay in Syria, but with the decline of that state and the increasing power of the
Jews, it had been occupied by the latter, although there was constant friction between the two. Secondly, the great expenditure on Strato's
Tower by Herod did not benefit Jerusalem, nay, it was a competitor of Joppa. Thirdly, the erection of the colossi of Augustus and of Urbs Roma
was not only a clear indication of homage to the Imperial Caesar, but it offended the Jews themselves, for they regarded such images as
forbidden by their faith. The sequel to this event was that, when the task was nearing completion, and the city was renamed Caesarea, in
honour of Augustus, as though signifying that it was his city and port, “an edict issued by Augustus Caesar in BC 14 released all Jews in Britain
from slavery or taxation.”

Significant words. May Horace have insinuated that that Augustus came to an arrangement with Herod whereby the latter built the city and port
to which he gave the name of Caesarea and held it in fief for the Romans? And that Augustus met the expense by relieving the Jews of the
payment of tribute which they so bitterly resented? Herod had to exercise great diplomacy to keep in with Roman Imperialism on the one hand
and his turbulent subjects on the other. Caesarea became the military centre of Roman power from which eventually Jerusalem was destroyed.
When Titus marched his armies to the siege of Jerusalem he concentrated his forces at Caesarea. It became the civil and military metropolis of
so-called Palestine.

The Jews again and again claimed that their religion of the Mosaic law forbade them to pay tribute to any Gentile ruler. It lay at the back of the
trouble in Hadrian's reign. This political arrangement between Augustus and Herod was probably a clever compromise, whereby Herod satisfied
his subjects that his expenditure gave them a splendid city and port on their southern border and that they were relieved of taxation and
slavery, whilst in the meantime Augustus obtained the strategic port that he needed.

Hear what Josephus says of this strangely-named “Strato's Tower”:
“The city itself was called Caesarea which was also built of fine materials and was of fine structure. Nay, the very subterranean vaults and
cellars had no less of architecture bestowed on them than had the buildings above ground. Some of these vaults carried things at even
distances to the haven and to the sea … both the rain and the filth of the citizens were together carried off with ease and the sea itself, upon
the flux of the tide, from without came into the city and washed it all clean.”

A fine, almost modern city with an up-to-date drainage and sanitary system. But please note what Josephus is telling us. Caesarea lay on a
tidal river: When the tide went out it carried to the sea the drainage of the city, and when the tide came in, it washed out the city drains. But
there are no tides in the eastern Mediterranean! Except near its entrance into the Atlantic, its tides are scarcely visible half-way to Israel. Thus
the conclusion must be that Strato's Tower or Caesarea was not in the Mediterranean.

We may now surely raise the question of the earlier origin of Strato's Tower in the south of Judaea, but properly in Syria. What was this city
originally which had been allowed to fall into such neglect, “much decayed”, until Herod restored and aggrandised it? We are told it lay near the
mouth of the river which flowed through the city. Who, then, was this elusive Strato who owned or built a Tower? All we can gather is that he
was an ancient King of “Phoenicia”, which may be interpreted as Chaldea. In other words, was it the ancient Babylon, which some 300 years
earlier had fallen into neglect and ruin? Was “Strato's Tower” a latent memory of Babylon, after it had become deserted and the Seleucid
hierarchy extinct, yet which became again prominent in the period of Roman domination for certain geographical, military and political reasons,
its former grandeur having faded into obscurity and the city itself only vaguely recalled by its Tower, a case of
sic transit gloria?

Such, indeed, appears to have been the case. It was situated in Shinar, the original land of Nimrod, in the Plain, with its river referred to in the
scriptures as Gozan (Ouse), in a fertile country, where arose Erech and Babel, the latter name relating to the famous Tower, of such majestic
proportions and wealth in its heyday, when it captivated the imagination of the world. This name Babylon simply meant “City of the Gate (or
entrance) of Bel”; used evidently as a descriptive term like our modern reference to Rome as “the Papal City”.

Who was Bel? He was no other than Apollo, the Hyperborean  -  or Greek  -  or Chaldean deity, who was known to the ancient Britons as “Bel”
or “Belin”, signifying “Lord”. What relation could this Northern god Apollo have borne to citizens dwelling in the Persian Gulf? The mere
question shews its absurdity. Babylon's true name was
Erech, hence the later variation of York, which as the city of Bel or Belin demonstrates
its Northern origin and its astronomical significance.

The name Bel or Belin was piously used by Northern British or Pictish Kings, like Cuno-Belin or Cassi-Bellaun, which latter  opposed the
landing of Caesar and, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth, was buried in York. He also gives us King Belinus, the same name latinised. The
Cassi or Catti, as will be explained later, were the original Macedonians, of Chaldean or Caledonian stock, Britons dwelling originally in North-
Eastern Scotland who, in accordance with their history at a certain period became the ruling power as far south as York. Their place-names
are still found in Yorkshire in such rivers as the Ure (Ur), Calder (Chaldea) and Don (the Aberdeenshire river where they dwelt). This ancient
relationship helps to explain why, when Alexander the Great marched south to Babylon, the people received him with loud acclamations and
delight, and was probably one of the main reasons why he attempted to transfer his capital to Babylon, which action was only prevented by his
untimely death.

These sidelights may seem somewhat premature before the facts are presented, but it is so, because the Northern deity Belin or Apollo
illuminates the history of Babylon when it lay in the grip of the Persian monarchs who adopted Zoroastrianism  -  otherwise the cult of Moses  -  
less through religious fervour than a desire for conquest. The Persians had ready allies in Babylon, where a powerful Jewish underground
movement was led by Daniel in order to betray the great city, which may be compared with the methods of certain modern informers.