Mainstream British reviews in 1937 embraced the claim that Chinese tribes were lost Israelites

Evidence

Torrance’s 1937 book made quite a splash. It was hailed as “the greatest missionary book of the century” by the Scottish Geographical Magazine, while The English Churchman and St. James’ Chronicle opined, “these twentieth century tribes are perpetuating today the actual customs of the Israelites who were contemporary with Elijah, Amos and Hosea … How strange that we should have to go to the Chinese-Tibet borderland for the latest confirmation of the Divine Book.” The Times Literary Supplement observed, somewhat chillingly in view of the fact that this was, after all, 1937: “A close study of their rites and customs has enabled Mr. Torrance to establish the identity of the Ch’iang people and to trace their history… . Mr. Torrance’s conclusions are confirmed by the illustrations to the text which show convincingly Jewish types.” — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 321

Categorization

• CANDY: The Times Literary Supplement in 1937 endorsing ‘convincingly Jewish types’ in China is an amusing and striking juxtaposition of scientific-sounding language with a fringe claim.
• QUESTION: Why did the lost-tribes narrative retain such mainstream legitimacy in 1937, and how did it connect to contemporary antisemitic and missionary politics?