Herbert W. Armstrong -- A Plagiarist?

This site examines the question, "Was Herbert W. Armstrong a plagiarist?" Our goal is to do this as objectively and fairly as possible, using verifiable facts. We are neither Armstrong-bashers or Armstrong-promoters.

Did Herbert Armstrong (pictured below) deliberately hide his sources of information so he could claim that God revealed doctrines to him directly, and that he did not get his teachings from men? Did he base his claim to be an apostle on assertions that he did not get his teachings from men? How many, if any, teachings did he actually get from the writings of other men?

Armstrong Plagiarism Research (APR) is not a church and is not affiliated with or supported by any church.

Armstrong's most read and most effective book was The United States and Britain in Prophecy. This book teaches that the white English-speaking peoples (primarily the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) descended from ten lost tribes of ancient Israel. This belief is called Anglo-Israelism.

Armstrong was not the first to write about Anglo-Israelism. Did Armstrong get this teaching from his own bible studies, or, as some have claimed, did he get it from earlier writers, such as J.H. Allen? If he did get it from others, did he give proper credit to his sources? Did he actually try to hide his sources?

What about allegations that he plagiarized material word-for-word on Anglo-Israelism as well as other subjects? Is there evidence of word-for-word plagiarism?

Did he get most of his teachings from existing sources but then claim he did not?

In 1902 J.H. Allen wrote Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright. Years later, Armstrong produced The United States and Britain in Prophecy which covers the same subject. Armstrong's book does not give credit to Allen's book or to other Anglo-Israel literature for the ideas or statements made in The United States and Britain in Prophecy. There is no bibliography.

There is no disputing which of these two men wrote first. According to Armstrong's autobiography, Armstrong had no interest in the bible until 1926 and he was not baptized until 1927. Armstrong's bible research did not begin until about a quarter century after Allen's book was written.

Some who have read The United States and Britain in Prophecy are only dimly aware of the existence of other writings on the same topic and have no realization of the extent to which Armstrong could have obtained information from other sources.

This web site is written primarily for those who are familiar with The United States and Britain in Prophecy but not with Allen's book on the same subject. However, anyone who reads this site can probably follow the main points even if they have not read either book. We present here a "side-by-side" comparison of excerpts from the two books so that readers can judge for themselves.

We also present side-by-side comparisons of some other writings of Herbert Armstrong to earlier works that bear a striking resemblance to his.

Although we link to external sites and store here material we have not written we do not necessarily agree with the material written by others. We provide this information because (i) we believe it is important to cite our sources whether we agree with them or not, and (ii) these papers and sites we link to contain related material which will be of interest to some readers.

Many, if not most, research papers and web sites contain factual errors, logical errors, or both. We advise the reader to carefully examine the material presented here and in any links or related documents.

Having said that, we do present here original source materials (e.g. the books by Allen and Armstrong) in their entirety. Comparing these materials should be sufficient to resolve the main question of whether there was any plagiarism.

Allen's book was written in three parts. Below are the chapter headings from Allen's book. To someone familiar with Armstrong's book, it is immediately clear that many of the same topics are covered. This does not prove plagiarism, but it helps to explain why the charge of plagiarism has been raised because just the chapter titles alone suggest that Armstrong could easily have gotten much of his information from Allen rather than from divine inspiration and his own research.

PART FIRST: The Birthright; Or, The Promise Of Many Nations To Abraham.

I.	Introductory
II.	Race Versus Grace
III.	The Sceptre and The Birthright
IV.	Jacob's Seed Divided Into Two Kingdoms
V.	All Israelites Are Not Jews
VI.	The Broken Brotherhood
VII.	Ephraim-Samaria -- Israel's Idolatry
VIII.	Samaria-Israel Cast Out And Cast Off
IX.	The Jews Go To Babylon And Return
X.	Joseph-Israel Lost
XI.	Joseph-Israel -- (Continued)

PART SECOND: The Sceptre; Or, The Promise Of A Perpetuated House, Throne, And Kingdom To David.

I.	The Sceptre And The Davidic Covenant
II.	Jeremiah's Call And Commission
III.	The Tearing Down And Rooting Out
IV.	Vindication Of The Personal Promises Of Jeremiah
V.	A Royal Remnant That Escapes
VI.	The Prince Of The Scarlet Thread
VII.	The "Prince Of The Scarlet Thread" And "The Royal Remnant" United

PART THIRD: The Veil Lifted From Abrahamic Nations.

I.	Lost Israel And The First Overturn Located
II.	Jacob's Pillow-Pillar Stone
III.	The Other Overturns
IV.	Dan -- The Serpent's Trail
V.	Israel In The Isles
VI.	A Few More Identities
VII.	A Study In "Scarlet"
VIII.	Egypt-Israelitish And Anglo-Saxon Emblems
IX.	The Two-Fold Aspect Of Prophetic Israel
X.	The Coming Exodus

Now here are the chapter headings from Armstrong's book.

1.	The Lost Master Key Has Been Found
2.	Prophecies Closed Until Now!
3.	National Greatness Promised Israel--Yet the Jews Never Received it--Why?
4.	The Separation of the Birthright and the Scepter
5.	The Davidic Covenant
6.	Children of Israel Become Two Nations
7.	Jeremiah's Mysterious Commission
8.	The Mysterious Breech
9.	Israel's New Land
10.	Birthright Withheld 2,520 Years!
11.	Why Israel Lost Identity
12.	The Birthright--at It's Zenith--and Now!
13.	And Now What? The Prophecies for the Immediate Future
14.	What's Prophesiced to Happen, Now-- to America and Britain

There are too many sub-headings in Armstrong's book to list them all, so I list here a few that are similar to those used by Allen. This is not meant to suggest that he necessarily copied these headings, but to show that many of the points covered in the two books are the same.

Dual Promises to Abraham	Chapter 3
Not Fulfilled in Jews	Chapter 3
A Nation and a Company of Nations	Chapter 3
Race, Not Grace	Chapter 4
Birthright Never Given to the Jews	Chapter 4
What the Birthright Conferred	Chapter 4
Birthright Never Given to the Jews	Chapter 4
The Birthright Denied to Ishmael	Chapter 4
Esau Sells the Birthright	Chapter 4
Israel Divided Into Two Nations	Chapter 6
Israel At War With The Jews	Chapter 6
Israel Driven out and Lost	Chapter 6
Israel, not Judah, Lost	Chapter 6
Israel Never Returned	Chapter 6
Tearing Down the Throne	Chapter 7
Jeremiah Escapes	Chapter 7
The Three Overturns	Chapter 8
Dan a Serpent's Trail	Chapter 9
They Turn to Idolatry	Chapter 10

Plagiarism is the charge, but where is the evidence? What constitutes evidence of plagiarism? In order to prove or disprove the claim that a writer copied from an earlier work, there are several types of evidence to consider.

The evidence can be grouped into several categories which we list here.

First, we look at the different categories, then we jump right in and look at the evidence by comparing some quotes from these two books.

Definitions of plagiarism

There seems to be much misunderstanding of just what plagiarism is. Some people think of plagiarism as direct word-for-word copying. That is the most blatant form of plagiarism, but certainly not the only kind. Plagiarism also includes copying ideas without giving credit to the person whose ideas were copied. I.e. passing off someone else's work as one's own.

In Nov 2009, dict.org gave the following definitions for "plagiarism":

• A piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work (from WordNet (r) 2.0).
  
  
• Taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own (from WordNet (r) 2.0).

Also in Nov 2009, a search on "plagiarism" at dictionary.com brought up the following:

• plagiarism: the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. (Dictionary.com Unabridged, Based on the Random House Dictionary)
  
  
• plagiarism: Literary theft. Plagiarism occurs when a writer duplicates another writer's language or ideas and then calls the work his or her own. Copyright laws protect writers' words as their legal property. To avoid the charge of plagiarism, writers take care to credit those from whom they borrow and quote. Note: Similar theft in music or other arts is also called plagiarism. (The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition)
  
  
• plagiarism: 1621, from L. plagiarius "kidnapper, seducer, plunderer," used in the sense of "literary thief" ... from plagium "kidnapping," from plaga "snare, net," ... (Online Etymology Dictionary, Douglas Harper)
  
  
• plagiarism: the act of taking the writings of another person and passing them off as one's own. The fraudulence is closely related to forgery and piracy-practices generally in violation of copyright laws. (Encyclopedia Britannica Online.)

After examining the evidence on this site, the reader can decide if some of the statements in Armstrong's work were a "close imitation" of Allen's language or thoughts, and therefore if those statements might constitute plagiarism.

How to use this site

We will compare "side-by-side" some statements made by the two authors and discuss the similarities.

First, a comment about emphasis used in quotes we take from the books. On this web page, all use of italics and small caps are just as they appeared in the original books, but underlining has been added in order to draw attention to various words and phrases.

Both books can be found on this site in their entirety in an easily searchable format so that the reader can check any of the quotes from either book. These books were copied from other web sites; we did not type them in ourselves. Please notifiy us if there are any errors. In order to be sure of the accuracy of these quotes we recommend checking them with a physical (non-electronic) copy of the books using the same editions that we use here. We do not recommend the Philadelphia Church of God's version of Armstrong's book because the PCG has been known to quietly make critical edits to Armstrong's material and then deceitfully republish the edited versions as if they were Armstrong's original unadulterated words. Comparing reliable copies of the original books will help the reader decide if similar wording is evidence of plagiarism.

1. Some word-for-word similarities of the two books

Direct copying with only minor alterations is pretty much a rock- solid proof of plagiarism. If both works contain the same statements nearly word-for-word, it is essentially proven that the second work was copied from the first.

See for example, the section on this web page called "Places in Ireland Named After Dan".

2. Reuse of specific examples

Many different examples can be used to illustrate a point. Therefore, if two different writers used the same distinct or unusual examples, one has to wonder why.

For example, consider the section on this page, "Not All Americans are Californians".

3. Reuse of distinct expressions

Reuse of distinct (or "unique") expressions might be evidence of plagiarism.

Consider for example, "Race Versus Grace". Is this a distinct expression?

4. Repeating errors or dubious points

Human beings make plenty of mistakes, but God does not. If we accept that God can reveal truth but not error, any errors in the United States and Britain in Prophecy must have been put there by Herbert Armstrong, not God. If those errors are very similar to errors made by other Anglo-Israel writers, the error was either repeated independently or copied from some other writer(s). If the error is an easy one to make it could have been made independently. If not, it was likely copied from the earlier source.

This is like when two students sitting next to each other put down the same wrong answer on test. One must ask if the wrong answer is a common error or a unlikely one.

This could apply to historical errors, translation errors, or interpretation errors. If Armstrong repeated the same historical errors or bible mistranslations as others, then it is doubtful that he arrived at that information independently.

Consider for example, the section, "North and West or Northwest?"

Because our time is limited, we put together just a small list, but a much longer list of potentially plagiarized material could be compiled.

We recommend simply reading these from first to last, but the reader can click on any one of the topics in this list to jump to that topic (section). Each section compares what Allen and Armstrong said on a given topic.

Allen: That Dan's leap landed him in Ireland is evident, for in that island we find to this day Dans-Lough, Dan-Sower, Dan-Monism, Dun-dalke, Dun-drum, Don-egal Bay and Don-e-gal City, with Dun-glow and Lon-don-derry just north of them. But there is also Din- gle, Dun-garven and Duns-more, which means 'More Dan's.' And, really, there are so many more that we have no space for them, except to mention Dangan Castle, where the Duke of Wellington was born, and to say that Dunn in the Irish language means just what Dan means in the Hebrew, i.e., a judge. (Part III, Chapter IV).

Armstrong: And in Ireland we find they left these 'waymarks': Dans-Laugh, Dan-Sower, Dun-dalk, Dun-drum, Don-egal Bay, Don-egal City, Dun- gloe, Din-gle, Dunsmor (meaning 'more Dans'). Moreover, the name Dunn in the Irish language means the same as Dan in the Hebrew: judge." (1980 edition, p. 124, chapter 9 Israel's New Land, section Dan a Serpent's Trail).

Comment: These two quotations are very similar. According to Allen there are so many examples of locations in Ireland named after the biblical tribe of Dan that there is not enough space in his book to list them all, yet Armstrong used the same examples as Allen. Armstrong even listed those places in the same order. If the names were in alphabetical order one might suppose that each author ordered them independently, but they are not, so how is it that the two lists are so similar in terms of the names used and the order in which those names are given? All nine locations Armstrong used were also used by Allen, and in the same order. And there are other similarities in these two short quotes. Did Armstrong simply copy this from Allen by dropping out a few of the examples and rewording it slightly?

Is it possible that the words could be so similar if Armstrong did not copy from Allen? An alternative explanation one might suggest in such a case is that God himself inspired the second writer using the same words that the first writer used. But why would God do such a thing? Why would God make it look like one of his servants copied from an earlier work without giving credit to the first writer? By doing so, wouldn't he be making one of his own servants look like an unethical plagiarist?

Allen: Had Jacob trusted God, he would have placed him in possession of the birthright in a perfectly honorable way; but he, in distrust, took matters into his own hands, and gained possession of it by wicked conniving. (Part I, Chapter III).

Armstrong: Had Jacob trusted the Eternal instead of taking this into his own hands in a wrong way, the birthright would have come to him more honorably. (1980 edition, p. 48, chapter 4, section The Lesson For Us).

Comment: Armstrong's statement is nearly word-for-word the same. The very next sentence in each book follows.

Allen: It was because of this that he had more trouble to secure the blessing of God upon his possession of this inheritance than had his predecessors, and though he wrestled for it with the angel all the night long, he did not secure it until he had first confessed his name -- which was expressive of his character -- to be Jacob, i.e., supplanter. (ibid).

Armstrong: Under the circumstances, Jacob, which name means "supplanter," had far more difficulty securing God's blessing upon the precious possession than his predecessors. But after years of trial and test-after finally wrestling all night with the angel (Genesis 32:24-29)-after confessing his name as "supplanter" ... (ibid).

Comment: Is this just two different writers explaining the same thing in their own words? We leave that for the reader to decide. Even if so, the remarkably detailed similarity of thought is striking. Once again, we continue in each book exactly where we left off.

Allen: Then it was that God bestowed the blessing, took away that reproachful name, and gave him a new and unstained one, even Israel: the meaning of which is: "As a prince thou hast prevailed with God." (see Genesis 32:28) (ibid).

Armstrong: ...-God bestowed His blessing upon Jacob, took away his reproachful name, and gave him a new, untainted name, Israel-which means "prevailer," or "overcomer with God." (ibid).

Comment: The two quotes are nearly word-for-word the same.

Allen: About 585 B. C. a 'notable man,' an 'important personage,' a patriarch, a saint, an essentially important someone, according to their various ways of putting it, came to Ulster, the most northern province of Ireland, accompanied by a princess, the daughter of an eastern king, and that in company with them was one Simon Brach, Breck, Brack, Barech, Berach, as it is differently spelled; and that this royal party brought with them many remarkable things. Among these was the harp, an ark and the wonderful stone called Liafail, or stone of destiny, of which we shall have much to say hereafter. (Part III, Chapter I).

Armstrong: Then, in 569 B.C. (date of Jeremiah's transplanting), an elderly, white-haired patriarch, sometimes referred to as a 'saint,' came to Ireland. With him was the princess daughter of an eastern king and a companion called 'Simon Brach,' spelled in different histories as Breck, Berech, Brach, or Berach. The princess had a Hebrew name Tephi-a pet name-her full name being Tea-Tephi. Modern literature of those who recognize our national identity has confused this Tea-Tephi, a daughter of Zedekiah, with an earlier Tea, a daughter of Ith, who lived in the days of David. This royal party included the son of the king of Ireland who had been in Jerusalem at the time of the siege. There he had become acquainted with Tea-Tephi. He married her shortly after 585-when the city fell. Their young son, now about 12 years of age, accompanied them to Ireland. Besides the royal family, Jeremiah brought with them some remarkable things, including a harp, an ark, and a wonderful stone called 'lia-fail,' or 'stone of destiny.' (1980 edition, p. 125, chapter 9 Israel's New Land, section Ancient Annals of Ireland).

Comment: Armstrong and Allen don't agree exactly on the dates but note that the wording is remarkably similar. For example the order in which they list the princess, eastern king, and Simon Brach, and then the order in which they list the harp, ark, and stone. There are some other similarities in the wording, a few of which have been underlined. Mere coincidence?

Note that Armstrong does acknowledge here the exsitance of other "literature of those who recognize our national identity" but he does not name names, indicate how much they knew, or tell the reader how much information, if any, he got from them. In other words, does not actually acknowledge a debt to these other writers either as sources of information for his book or for when he first learned about the subject.

If someone can show where Armstrong gave credit to other writers, please let us know.

Allen: Understand us: we do not say that the Jews are not Israelites; they belong to the posterity of Jacob, who was called Israel; hence they are all Israelites. But the great bulk of Israelites are not the Jews, just as the great bulk of Americans are not Californians, and yet all Californians are Americans; also, as in writing the history of America we must of necessity write the history of California, because California is a part of America; but we could write a history of California without writing a history of America. (Part I, Chapter V).

Armstrong: Jews are Israelites, just as Californians are Americans. But most Israelites are not Jews, just as most Americans are not Californians. The Jews are the house of Judah only, a part of the Israelites. (1980 edition, p. 81, chapter 6 Children of Israel Become Two Nations, section House of Israel Not Jews).

Comment: Both authors use the relationship of Californians to Americans to illustrate the relationship of Jews to Israelites (i.e. the tribe of Judah was only one of the 12 tribes of Israel). Rather than repeat Allan's example, Armstrong could have used many examples other than the American-Californian one. He could have used any one of 49 other U.S. states. What are the odds of independently choosing the same state? About one in 50? The odds get even lower if we consider that he could have used a state-city comparison (e.g. all people from Dallas are Texans, but not all Texans are from Dallas), a continent-country comparison (all Italians are Europeans, but not all Europeans are Italians), a racial comparison (all Chinese are Asians, but not all Asians are Chinese) or some other illustration (e.g. a hawk is a bird but not all birds are hawks).

Now here is what Armstrong wrote in an earlier version.

Armstrong: Jews are Israelites just as Oregonians are Americans. But MOST Israelites, are not Jews, just as most Americans are not Oregonians. The Jews are the House of Judah only! A PART of the Israelites. (United States in Prophecy, 1945).

Comment: Note that the 1945 version uses Oregon instead of California. Since Armstrong started his work in Oregon and later moved it to California, this would be a logical explanation for using these states. It's also possible that prior to 1945 he copied Allen's idea and changed the state name to Oregon to hide his (alleged) plagiarism, then changed it back to California after he moved there, having forgotten by that time that Allen used California.

Allen: This brings us to the question of race versus grace ... (Part I, Chapter II).

...a question of Race, and not of Grace. (Part I, Chapter II).

However, there is both an election of race and an election of grace, ..... the election of grace.... regarding the attitude of a certain part of the elect race toward the election of grace ... Here we find two elections, i.e., the election of race and the election of grace. (Part I, Chapter II).

Armstrong: They miss the fact that God gave Abraham promises of physical race as well as spiritual grace. (1980 edition, p. 23, chapter 3 National Greatness Promised Israel, section Dual Promises To Abraham).

Armstrong: This is speaking of race, not grace. (1980 edition, p. 24).

Comment: Armstrong used the catchy phrase "race not grace". Was that a mere coincidence or did Armstrong copy this phrase from Allen? "Race Versus Grace" was the title of the second chapter in Allen's book.

Allen: "...the Lord causes the prophet to make proclamation: 'Behold, these shall come from far off, and lo, these from the north and from the west.' (Isaiah 49:12). In the Hebrew there is no compound word for northwest as we use it; hence the expression north and west." (Part III, Chapter I).

Armstrong: "God says: 'Behold, these shall come from far: and, lo, these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim' (Isaiah 49:12). In the Hebrew, the language in which this was originally inspired, there is no word for 'northwest,' but this term is designated by the phrase, 'the north and the west.' It means, literally, the northwest!" (1980 edition, p. 117, chapter 9 Israel's New Land, section Lost Israel Located).

Comment:

Perhaps Isaiah did mean northwest, but most likely he just meant some would come from the north and others from the west. After, all, he did say, "from the north and from the west" rather than "from the north and west".

If there is no Hebrew word for northwest, then Isaiah would have to use the words for north and west to indicate northwest. But he would also have to use the very same words if he meant to indicate both directions, some from the north and some from the west. How then does Armstrong (or Allen) know that northwest is the real intent, rather than some from the north and others from the west?

If northwest is the real intent, why didn't the translators recognize that? Let's look at this verse in a few different translations, noting that none of these translations says "northwest". Although perhaps no such term existed in Hebrew, it does in English, so if that was the meaning, why didn't the translators use it?

(1) "... some from the north, some from the west, ..." (New International Version).

(2) "... these will come from the north and from the west ... " (New American Standard Version).

(3) "Behold, these shall come from afar--and, behold, these from the north and from the west, and these from the land of Sinim (China)." (Amplified Bible).

(4) "... from the north and the west ... " (New King James Version).

(5) "Then my people will return from distant lands in the north and the west and from the city of Syene." (Contemporary English Version).

(6) "Lo, these shall come from far; and, lo, these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim." (American Standard Version).

(7) "Look: These coming from far countries, and those, out of the north, These streaming in from the west, and those from all the way down the Nile!" (The Message).

(8) "Look, people are coming to me from far away, from the north and from the west, from Aswan in southern Egypt." (New Century Version).

(9) "Behold, these shall come from afar; and behold, these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim." (Darby Translation).

(10) "Lo, these from afar come in, And lo, these from the north, and from the sea, And these from the land of Sinim." (Young's Literal Translation).

(11) "Lo, these shall come from afar, and lo, these from the north and from the west, and these from the land of Syene." (Revised Standard Version).

(12) "Behold, these shall come from far: and, lo, these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim." (King James).

Armstrong's enthusiastic assertion that "It means, literally, the northwest!" seems to be without any basis. If the reader can find a reputable translation that says "northwest" please let us know and we will cite it here.

If Allen and Armstrong are right, it seems curious that the All-Powerful God did not ensure that the Hebrew is more clear on such an important point.

If these translations are correct, Allen and Armstrong both made the same mistake. Did Armstrong make the same mistake independently, or did he copy it from Allen (or some other writer of Anglo-Israelism)?

Allen: Thus we see that the first time the word Jews is used in the history of the Abrahamic race is at a time when the Jews and Israel were at war with each other. (Part I, Chapter V).

Armstrong: The first place in Scripture where the name 'Jew' appears, the Jews were at war against Israel! (1980 edition, p. 79, chapter 6 Children of Israel Become Two Nations, section Israel at War with the Jews).

Comment: This is a vital point in the Anglo-Israelite worldview, but not one that needed to be revealed anew to Armstrong.

Allen: The fact that Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, who were the final inheritors of the Birthright, were half- blood Egyptians is that which made it necessary for Jacob to adopt them and make them fully his own, as Reuben and Simeon were his, before he could confer upon them the covenant Birthright. (Part I, Chapter V).

Armstrong: Thus did Jacob adopt Joseph's two sons, making them, legally, his own sons. This, no doubt, was done because they were half-blooded Egyptians. Israel made them his own adopted sons, so the birthright could be passed on to them. (1980 edition, pp. 51-52, Chapter 4 The Separation of the Birthright and the Sceptre, section Birthright to Joseph's Sons).

Comment: Allen wrote of many such details before Armstrong.

Allen: We have brought you through this group of words to show that ish in Hebrew means a man. Now take the Hebrew word which is translated covenant, which in its original form has no vowel, but which in its Anglicized form retains the vowel i to preserve the y sound, and we have Brith, which joined with ish is Brith-ish, and means 'A covenant man.' Today the BRITISH people, or men of the covenant, are called Britons, and are dwelling in the British Isles!!! (Part III, Chapter V).

Armstrong: The house of Israel is the covenant people. The Hebrew word for 'covenant' is beriyth, or berith. ...

The Hebrew for 'man' is iysh, or ish. ... In the original Hebrew language vowels were never given in the spelling. So, omitting the vowel 'e' from berith, but retaining the 'I' in its anglicized form to preserve the 'y' sound, we have the anglicized Hebrew word for covenant, brith.

... the Hebrew word for 'covenant' would be pronounced, in its anglicized form, as brit.

And the word for 'covenant man,' or 'covenant people,' would therefore be simply 'brit-ish.' And so, is it mere coincidence that the true covenant people today are called the 'British'? And they reside in the 'British Isles'! (1980 edition, p. 119-120, chapter 9 Israel's New Land, section Britain's Hebrew Names).

Comment: How would Armstrong have known these linguistic details unless he got them from Allen or some other proponent of Anglo-Israelism? He was not a linguist and he did not know Hebrew, so how did he find this out? Does it make more sense to believe that he came up with details like this through divine revelation, or from an existing body of Anglo-Israelite literature that was put together over the decades by various bible students, some of whom had studied Hebrew? If he got it from others, why didn't he cite his sources to support his conclusions? Was he trying to hide his sources?

Allen: ...the crown which was worn by the sovereigns of that hitherto unaccounted-for kingdom in Ireland had twelve points. (Part III, Chapter I).

Armstrong: Another interesting fact is that the crown worn by the kings of the line of Herremon and the other sovereigns of ancient Ireland had twelve points! (1980 edition, p. 126, chapter 9, section Ancient Annals of Ireland).

Comment: First, where did Armstrong get this information? He was not a historian.

Second, we could ask if this point is really relevant? Could the 12 points on the crown be unrelated to Israel's 12 tribes? There are other things that are grouped by the dozen. There are 12 signs of the Zodiac. There are 12 months in the year. There are 12 animals associated with the 12-year cycle of the Chinese calendar. There are 12 days of Christmas. There were 12 original apostles. And if Ireland was one of the ten lost tribes, shouldn't the crown have ten points? Or since Ireland represented only one tribe, should it have just one point?

Does it seem suspicious that both authors were aware of the same obscure point from history, and that they both tried to use it to make a dubious connection with the 12 tribes of Israel?

On this site we take no position on the question of whether Ireland or any other modern nation is descended from the ten tribes. We are not trying to prove or disprove Anglo-Israelism. The point is that if both authors use sound arguments they could have arrived at them from independent research. But if they both used some of the same flimsy or false arguments then it suggests ideas might have been copied.

In school, if two students hand in essays on the same topic and make the same points using the same weak or wrong explanations, it suggests that they collaborated in producing the essays. This is especially so if the wrong explanations are based on obscure points that few people would know about. So we beleive that the question of plagiarism can be raised, but we leave it to the reader to decide whether the connection between the 12 points on the throne and the 12 tribes is a strong one and whether it is based on an obscure historical point.

Allen: Simply to show the fact that there is in Biblical history that which is styled the Sceptre, and also that there is a something which is designated as the Birthright, we quote the following: 'The Sceptre shall not depart from Judah, etc.' Gen. 49:10. 'For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him comes the chief ruler [prince]; but the Birthright is Joseph's,' 1 Chron. 5:2. (Part I, Chapter III).

Armstrong: Let us understand the meaning of the terms:

'Birthright: native right or privilege'-Standard Dictionary; 'any right acquired by birth'-Webster's. A birthright is something which is one's right, by birth. It has nothing to do with grace, which is unmerited pardon and a free gift which is not one's right. It has to do with race, not grace. Birthright possessions are customarily passed down from father to eldest son.

'Scepter: kingly office; royal power; badge of command or sovereignty'-Standard Dictionary. The promised kingly line culminates in Christ, and involves grace to all. (1980 edition, pp. 35-6, chapter 4, The Separation of the Birthright and the Sceptre, section Race, Not Grace) .

Comment: Allen knew about the birthright and the scepter before Armstrong did.

Allen: ... the King James' translation, reads as follows: "Dan shall be a serpent by the way." (Genesis 49:17). But a better translation is as follows: "Dan shall be a serpent's trail." A few points in the history of the children of Dan will show us how they became a serpent's trail.

Armstrong: In Genesis 49:17, Jacob, foretelling what should befall each of the tribes, says: "Dan shall be a serpent by the way." Another translation of the original Hebrew is: "Dan shall be a serpent's trail." It is a significant fact that the tribe of Dan, one of the Ten Tribes, named every place they went after their father Dan. (1980, Chapter 9, section "Dan a serpent's trail", p. 121).

Comment: This alternative translation of Gen 49:17 appears to be an error by both authors. If it is an error, one has to wonder if it was plagiarized.

But why does this seem to be an error?

The question is whether Dan is a serpent, which sits in or next to the trail, or whether he is a serpent's trail. Allen and Armstrong assert the latter.

The first argument that Dan is actually a serpent rather than a trail, is the context, which both authors left out. Let's read the entire verse: "Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward." (King James Translation). Note that a serpent can bite the horse heels, but a trail cannot because a trail, of course, has no teeth.

The second argument that Dan is a serpent rather than a trail is that quite a few translations agree with the King James. We don't know of any that don't. Please let us know if you can find a translation that actually says Dan is a trail rather than a serpent.

Here are a few other translations.

(1) "Dan will be a serpent by the roadside, a viper along the path, that bites the horse's heels so that its rider tumbles backward." (New International Version).

(2) "Dan is only a small snake in the grass, a lethal serpent in ambush by the road, When he strikes a horse in the heel, and brings its huge rider crashing down." (The Message).

(3) "Dan is a serpent by the way, An adder by the path, Which is biting the horse's heels, And its rider falleth backward." (Young's Literal Translation).

We could quote more examples, but suffice it to say that the following translations all agree with those we already quoted: New American Standard Bible, Amplified Bible, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, New King James Version, Darby Translation, American Standard Version, and the New International Reader's Version.

To say, as Allen does, that calling Dan a trail is "a better translation" seems to be unfounded. It might not be a translation of the Hebrew at all. It could even be a distortion of scripture to support Anglo-Israelism. If so, did both these authors distort the same scripture in the same way independently?

Whether the tribe of Dan actually went to Ireland and set up a trail along the way, we don't know. But to use this verse to support that position, is in our view, without any basis.

Allen: One of the first national characteristics mentioned in prophecy concerning Isaac's seed is, that they shall possess the gates of those that hate them. Gates are entrances. National gates are now called "ports." Since the acquisition of the Sandwich Isles, Porto Rico and the Philippines by the United States, the Saxons control nearly all the national gateways of the world. (Part III, Chapter IX).

Armstrong: Read again the prophetic promises of Genesis 22:17.

To Abraham God said: "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies."

And again, the inspired prophetic parting blessing upon Rebekah, leaving her family to become the wife of Isaac: "And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them" (Gen. 24:60).

Earlier we quoted the correct Fenton translation: "... and your race shall possess the gates [plural] of its enemies." As explained there, the "gates" of enemy nations are the strategic SEA GATES of entrance to or exit from these nations. (1980, Chapter 12, pp. 188- 9).

Comment: There are some doubts about the correctness of this interpretation. The first is whether it should be singular "gate" or plural, "gates". The next is whether "gate" is the correct translation, since other translations of the same word are "city" (or "cities") and "court" (or "courts").

Armstrong asserts that the Fenton translation, which uses the plural, "gates" in Gen 22:17, is the correct translation. But even the Fenton translation uses the singular in Gen 24:60, which it translates as "... they gave Rebekka their blessing, and said to her; You are our sister. Increase to thousands, and may your descendants possess the gate of their enemies".

The New American Standard Bible, uses "gate" (singular) in Gen 22:17, as does the King James, the Amplified Bible, the English Standard Version, New King James Version, Young's Literal Translation, Darby Translation, and the American Standard Version.

Even if "gates" is taken to be plural, it is doubtful whether it refers to sea gates as Allen and Armstrong claim.

The New International Version says, "Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies...". The New Living Translation also uses cities: "Your descendants will conquer the cities of their enemies."

Clarke's commentary says, "Instead of gate the Septuagint have, cities; but as there is a very near resemblance between, cities, and, gates, the latter might have been the original reading in the Septuagint, though none of the [manuscripts] now acknowledge it. By the gates may be meant all the strength, whether troops, counsels, or fortified cities of their enemies."

So it appears that we have an uncertain translation used by both authors, which, if incorrect, might be evidence of copying the wrong idea.

Allen: ... we find that the far-off home of Ephraim-Israel is in, not an island, but "the isles," i.e., a group of islands. Thus Ephraim, also, is located in the sea, in the isles afar off. The prophet Isaiah, in the forty-ninth chapter, addresses these same people, saying: "Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people from afar ... Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will [still in the future] be glorified." (Isaiah 49:1, 3). (Part III Chapter I).

Armstrong: The same 49th chapter of Isaiah begins with this: "Listen, O isles, unto me." The people addressed, Israel, are called "O isles" in the first verse and "O Israel" in the third verse. (1980, Chapter 9, p. 117).

Comment: Both authors claim that the British Isles are the "isles" referred to here. To come to this conclusion they assert that "Israel" in verse three refers to the "isles" in verse one. However, a careful reading of this passage makes it clear, in our view, that it has been badly misinterpreted or deliberately twisted.

First, note that "isles" are sometimes translated coastlands, so this passage is not necessarily refering to any islands at all.

Second, these verses picture Israel (referred to as "me") in this passage as speaking TO these isles. Therefore, the isles (or coastlands) here cannot be Israel. There are two different groups of people addressed. Israel on the one hand, and the coastlands on the other hand.

Here are the first three verses in their entirety in a modern translation. The portion that Allen left out by use of ellipsis (...) is inside square brackets.

Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. [The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name. He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow; in his quiver he hid me away. And he said to me,] "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified." (English Standard Version, emphasis added).

When we see this passage presented in its entirety, it should be clear that the meaning is not the same as that given to it by Allen and Armstrong. By leaving out the material in the middle they changed the meaning. This leads us to wonder what these authors were thinking and why they only quoted selected parts of this passage.

Both authors also use Isa 41:1,8 in a similar way, repeating the same error of identifying the people of the isles (verse one) with Israel (verse eight) and leaving out material in between that shows two different peoples are actually referred to.

Armstrong: Again: "Keep silence before me, O islands ... thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen" (Isa. 41:1,8). (1980, p. 117-119).

Comment: Did Armstrong copy this faulty interpretation from Allen, or did he research this independently? We leave the reader to ponder that question.

Allen: When Jehovah confirmed his promise to David concerning the perpetuity of his kingdom, throne, sceptre and house, and took oath by his holiness that he would not lie to him, he said: "I will set his hand [scepter] in the sea." (Psalm 89:25). (Part III, Chapter I)

Armstrong: When the Eternal swore to David that He would perpetuate his throne, He said: "I will set his hand [sceptre] also in the sea" (Ps. 89:25). The throne is to be "set," planted, "in the sea." (1980, p. 116).

Comment: Not only are these two statements similar in wording, but the interpretation is doubtful for at least two reasons.

First, the complete verse actually says "I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers". Since Anglo-Israelism holds that the throne of David is in London England, we ask: if we are to interpret this verse to give us the location of that throne, why is there is only one river flowing through that city?

Second, there are other translations of this verse which make the meaning more clear. Let's look at some of them.

New Living Translation: "I will extend his rule over the sea, his dominion over the rivers."

Holman Christian Standard Bible: "I will extend his power to the sea, and his right hand to the rivers."

Amplified Bible: "I will set his hand in control also on the ... Sea, and his right hand on the rivers ...."

Contemporary English Version: "I will let him rule the lands across the rivers and seas."

Today's New International Version: "I will set his hand over the sea, his right hand over the rivers."

We conclude that this verse refers to the extent of David's power (either to, over, or across, the sea and rivers) rather than to the location of his throne on an island in the sea. It certainly does not say "throne" or "scepter" in this verse and it does not mention an island or islands. We regard the Allen-Armstrong interpretation to be at best, subjective and dubious. We believe that God would not expect us to accept such uncertain "evidence", since God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33) and he requires that Christians "prove all things" (I Thess 5:21).

Allen: Is it any wonder that skepticism is rampant, both in the church and out of it, since the common error of Christendom is to regard the Jews as the whole house of Israel? Is it any wonder that Tom Paine lost his soul while following the beaten path of this fallacy? For he did give the Bible up as a myth, and boldly states in his writings that he was led into infidelity because he saw that the Jews did not and never could verify the promises concerning Israel. (Part I, Chapter V).

Armstrong: Here is the enigma of the ages! Is this a divine promise unkept? Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll lost faith in God and rejected the Bible because they believed these national promises were never fulfilled. (1980 edition, Chapter 3, p. 34).

Armstrong: Can one wonder that men like Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll lost faith in the Bible? They saw these unconditional promises, but they could not see how they had been kept. (1980 edition, Chapter 5, p. 66)

Comment: Both authors refer to the same example: Thomas Paine. Is that just a coincidence? There must have been other famous skeptics. On the other hand, Paine was indeed one of the most famous.

More importantly, while we don't claim to be experts on Tom Paine, it is clear from his writings that he had many quarrels with the bible that were not related in any way to Anglo-Israelism. So why do Allen and Armstrong present Anglo-Israelism as the answer to Tom Paine's bible skepticism? We wonder if either of them actually read Tom Paine, and if one of them just copied this notion from the other.

Did Armstrong have the time and expertise to produce the work?

Remember that the book The United States and Britain in Prophecy is only a summary of all the research that would have had to be done to produce the book. To put together all the information summarized in the book Armstrong would have had to do a lot of bible and historical research. He would have had to research a great deal of ancient history and put it together with many bible passages. He would have had to sort out a lot of truth from error. This would have been a very time consuming task even if inspired by God through the process. It is our understanding that Armstrong first wrote about Anglo-Israelism shortly after his conversion. He was not a historian and at that time his knowledge of the bible was quite limited. Yet we find that he apparently waded through numerous bible prophecies and forgotten historical documents in what must have been record time. It was long before the Internet age so he would likely have had to travel to find obscure records such as the ancient annals of Ireland. He would have had to find all this information, read and digest volumes of information, analyze it, evaluate it, distill it, and summarize it. He had to do all this without using a computer to find any information. He had to do all this without using any modern bible research tools (modern bible dictionaries, modern translations, software tools, on-line concordances, etc). In the mean time he had a family to feed and perhaps also a church ministry to take care of. And perhaps he was also researching a lot of other doctrines at the same time.

How did he do all this so fast? Did he simply "copy" it?

Anyone who thinks this can be done quickly should try the following exercise which is very simple in comparison: Without using the Internet or consulting any existing Anglo-Israel literature, attempt to verify every detail of every historical claim presented in the book by looking up those details in the original documents.

This "little" exercise does not require the reader to do any original research, come up with any original ideas, sort out truth from error, or seek out any new bible proof. Just try to verify the historical claims.

Just making this small web site was time consuming. And "all" I had to do was to get just two books (Armstrong's book and Allen's book), compare them, think about it, and write up my thoughts. I also discussed this topic with a few others to get their input. I got the books off of the Internet so although I had to reformat them, I didn't have to type them in and I and didn't have to leave the comfort of my home. I already knew how to make a web site so there was no time spent learning that.

But did Armstrong actually try to pass it off as his own work?

Some of Armstrong's followers who believe that Armstrong got information from Allen insist that he did no real harm. Several explanations have been offered for this viewpoint.

The definitions of plagiarism (found earlier on this web page) show that plagiarism involves not just using someone else's words or ideas but also trying to pass it off as one's own work. Copying words or ideas from others is not plagiarism as long as one gives credit to the original author. Therefore, if Armstrong gave proper credit, then he did not plagiarize.

Did the rules of citing sources change?

Some say the rules of plagiarism were different when Armstrong first wrote his book, that it was not customary at the time to give credit to other writers. But Armstrong's last revision of his book was published in 1980, and at that time giving credit was a very well established custom. Yet even at this late date there was no mention of Allen in the book.

But didn't Armstrong give credit to Allen outside the book?

If someone can prove he gave credit to Allen please let me know and I will cite it here on this site. But even if he did give credit to Allen privately, that is not giving proper credit. Armstrong does not mention Allen in his book which is the proper place to mention him if he used Allen's ideas.

But didn't everyone know about Allen anyway?

Some say that Allen was widely known about in the Worldwide Church of God, so Armstrong wasn't hiding anything. But Armstrong mailed his book to about five million people outside that church. Presumably, very few of them would have known about Allen. And even many of those in the church would not have realized how much of what Armstrong wrote on the subject was already known. Some people who were in that church for decades are quite surprised when they learn how much Allen already knew. Those who did know about Allen, didn't seem to get that information from Armstrong.

Did Armstrong actually claim God revealed it to him?

Some say Armstrong was not trying to pass the book off as revelation from God to him personally. They say he was just writing about the subject.

However, he claimed he was Elijah prophesied to come and restore "all things" (lost doctrines) to the church. He also said Anglo-Israelism was one of the truths he restored.

Also, please note the following statements from The United States and Britain in Prophecy.

Armstrong said he was doing the work of God:

God has said, IN YOUR BIBLE, that He would get the warning to His people Ephraim-BRITAIN. [1980, p. 225, last chapter, section God Said It!...].

Some day, people will wake up to realize this is the Work of God! [1980, p. 226].

This book has given the WARNING from God and His Word. [1980, p. 228].

By God's direction and authority, I have laid the truth before you! (1980, p. 229, last chapter, section You Can Escape ...).

He said he was the servant of God who had the secret of the lost ten tribes:

Yet the best minds in the world are in total ignorance of the unprecedented cataclysm that is about to strike. And why have these prophecies not been understood or believed? Because the vital KEY that unlocks prophecy to our understanding had been lost. That key is the identity of the United States and the British peoples in biblical prophecy.

That key has been found! We present it to those whose unprejudiced eyes are willing to see.

The events prophesied to strike the American and British peoples in the next few years are SURE!

God says: "Surely the Lord Eternal will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). ... [1980, p. xii, Introduction, section, Best Minds -- Total Ignorance]

Consider this last quote. Aside from the fact that Armstrong was off in his timing, since more than a "few years" have passed since he wrote this, he again implies that God is using him (and his church) to do the work of getting this message out. In other words, he says he is the servant of God leading this effort. And by calling this doctrine the lost vital key, and then quoting Amos 3:7 about God revealing his "secret" to his servants, he creates the impression that this secret was revealed to him. He quoted Amos 3:7 again later (1980, p. 225, last chapter, section God Said It!...).

In the next excerpt Armstrong excludes the possibility that Allen could have known about the lost ten tribes. Although he doesn't mention Allen by name, he excludes Allen in two different ways.

First, Armstrong seems to deny the existence of any Anglo-Israelite literature prior to 1950 by asserting that prophecy was sealed until "the latter half of the twentieth century" (p. 8) which would be from 1950 to 2000. According to the Wikipedia article J.H. Allen, Allen died in 1930. Clearly, Allen couldn't have known about Anglo-Israelism if it was not revealed until 20 or more years after he died.

Of course, Allen did know about these prophecies, so it is simply untrue that the prophecies could not be known until after 1950. If Armstrong did read Allen's book, he should have known that wasn't true.

I. The Proof of the Bible.

Did Armstrong plagiarize from parts of Prophecy Speaks by a Seventh Day Adventist when he wrote The Proof of the Bible? The two booklets contain many differences. However, there are important similarities in content, order of presentation, and wording. Here are a few excerpts.

Rowell: Tyre grew in importance until she was mistress of the sea as was Babylon of the land. She was the commercial centre of the world. Carthage, the rival of Rome, was only a colony of Tyre — Tyre, the beautiful, the rich, ...

Armstrong: That city was the mistress of the seas -- of the whole world; it was the commercial center of the world. It was beautiful, rich, and stable.

Rowell: A dollar each from the unbelievers in England and America would be sufficient to rebuild Tyre...

Armstrong: Just go over and build a small city on the site of New Tyre. A collection of a dollar each from all of the American skeptics alone would be ample.

Rowell: Every year, every day, every minute that Tyre has remained in utter ruin it has disproved the emphatic declaration of sceptics ...

Armstrong: Every year, EVERY DAY, yes, EVERY HOUR that site of New Tyre remains a desolate top of the rock for spreading of fishermen's nets -- every hour that it remains uninhabited, and no city is built there, it is SHOUTING the PROOF of divine revelation of the Bible to skeptics.

Rowell: When Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel lived, Egypt was then so ancient that she boasted a longer unbroken line of kings than did any other nation. To Ezekiel the settling of Egypt was as ancient as the beginning of the Christian religion is to us. The prophets of his day, 600 B. C., knew Egypt as the granary of the world, eminent in science, in the arts, in luxury and magnificence, a leader of civilization. For many centuries these artificial mountains, the justly famed pyramids of Egypt, had stood as proud sentinels of a proud country of many splendours.

Armstrong: The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel lived some 600 years before Christ. Egypt was then already very ancient. It was the leader of civilization, of the world at that time. It was far advanced in science, and arts, luxury and magnificence. It was the granary of the world with its rich Nile valley. The mightiest buildings on earth -- the pyramids -- were there.

Comment: As we understand it, the Worldwide Church of God disavowed The Proof of the Bible while Armstrong was still alive, not because of plagiarism issues, but because they decided the booklet was wrong. The Armstrong booklet is still being distributed by the Philadelphia Church of God, an offshoot of the WCG, which bought the copyright to it from the WCG. We present here both booklets in their entirety, side-by-side.

If you have any comments on this web site, please write and let us know. We welcome information such as:

Please state whether or not you want your comment and your name posted on the Internet. We might or might not post your comments on this site in the future, depending on whether we have time for that and whether we have your permission. Instead of using your full name (you might not want someone like your employer to see it) you can use just your first name and a description of yourself that only some people will recognize, such as "My name is Joe and I was in the XYZ Church of God in Timbuktu from 1980 to 1990." Alternatively, you can use a pen name.

To contact Armstrong Plagiarism Research, write to a.p.research.1 at our gmail account (i.e. @gmail.com).

More To Come?

We might add more information on this topic so please check back later.