MR SAMPSON’S RETURN.

Southland Times, Issue 20011, 27 October 1926, Page 9

MR SAMPSON’S RETURN.

To the Editor. Sir,—l see that Mr Frank Sampson has returned to the firing line, and that he is as hale and nopsensical as ever. I would not suggest that Mr Sampson is garrulous but on the other hand he cannot be described as being a man of few words, he makes his debut with a whole column, the which save for a few lines is all words, words, words and many of them silly words. What bearing they have on the British-Israel question is known only to Mr Sampson. In justice to him I may say that he has read them and I have only glanced at them. A feeling of mental indigestion overwhelming me I had to turn from them. As Mr Sampson has promised a further consignment of quotations may I beg of him to include the following from Tynaole, who first translated the Bible into English in the 15th century. It is as follows:—“The properties of the Hebrew tongue agree a thousand times more with the English than the Latin.” Tyndale -was not a British Israelite and no man came more into contact with the Hebrew than he did. This will appeal to Mr Sampson I am sure. I noticed in my hurried glance that Mr Sampson has put himself to a vast amount of needless trouble digging up the primitive language of man. He has quoted two Harvard. professors, but why bother about it? We are not in the least concerned, the Hebrew of the Israelite people is all we have to do with. Another trifle caught my eye. Mr Sampson reminds us how in a former letter he exposed the pretensions as to the Hebrew words for “covenant people.” Here again he quoted two Hebrew scholars to completely refute the British Israel claim that “Brith” “Ish” were the Hebrew for covenant people. Mr Sampson however got a bit mixed. He referred to the word “British” and that one professor said that “Brit” was not “covenant,” saying however that the word for covenant was “Brith” (just what we claim). His other professor said there is a Hebrew word “Brith” meaning covenant and ‘Tsh” meaning “man.” Now what more is wanted? They have stated our case perfectly “Brith”—“lsh” “covenant man” and yet extraordinary as it may seem Mr Sampson on the authority of these “two learned Jewish scholars,”'

says that he exposed the ridiculous clap trap of British Israel derivations of “British” what a hopeless tangle Mr Sampson has made of it. The word British is not in it at all but the Hebrew “Brith Ish” are so like that Mr Sampson doesn’t know the difference, yet forsooth he professes to be a teacher! The last time I heard of Mr Sampson he was masquerading as Mr “Ridicule.” What about, a little variation to suit his new role for he is absurdly ridiculous and nonsensical.—l am etc., SAXON.