The Language of the Celts Of prime consideration, the question of the dissimilarity between the language of the Celts and that of the Israelites constitutes the greatest hurdle to the idea of the common racial parentage of the two peoples.
The Israelites, indeed, left Palestine speaking a Semitic language, and appeared in Europe using another language which philologists class as Indo-European.
But what does this term "Indo-European" of which one speaks with such erudition, mean? Is there really such a great dissimilarity between the languages classed in the group Indo-European and those called Semitic?
Language Doesn't Necessarily Indicate Race History, linguistics and archaeology offer only vague and fragile ideas upon which philologists try to reconstitute, without the aid of the Bible, the range and development of the languages of the entire world. For example, Dottin avows:
"In fact, we most often don't know which languages were spoken by ancient peoples of Europe, and when certain of them left inscriptions" (The Ancient People of Europe, p. 19).
This frank confession, though of a general order, in no way hinders historians in proposing all sorts of theories that they consider truths! They can even attempt to trace the origin of a people solely by the science of the linguist, all the while knowing that this is an impossibility (The Origins of the Aryans)!
Comparative philology is a relatively new science. Previously, lacking the science of linguistics, it was the exhaustive Biblical account relative to the diversity of languages that historians accepted as truthful! But the more man progressed, the more it seems "science" takes priority over divine revelation!
Hebrew or Sanskrit? Even philologists confess that the general characters of the mother language of the Indo-European class can be only vaguely reconstituted, and rightly say that there exist many opposing views on the subject (The Ancient People of Europe, p.65). The explanations given to prove that the languages of this group are derived from Sanskrit and Zend leave much to be desired.
While the most ancient Indo-European texts are the inscriptions in Persian of Darius (522-486 B.C.), Sanskrit, which some consider the oldest language, does not offer any text bearing a date prior to the third century before our era!
How then can this language, whose origin is comparatively so recent, have become the mother of the Indo-European languages? Linguists can give no explanation. In fact, because of some recent archaeological discoveries, they are even forced to admit that the oldest language known to man is the ancient Hebrew!
Where then is the key to the mystery? In spite of apparent difference, is there a connection between the Indo-European languages and the Semitic languages? What is the one mother language from which all the languages of the world are derived?
Unlike all of the rest of us who must learn a language in order to exchange ideas among ourselves, Adam, the first man, received the knowledge of a language directly from God, since God spoke to man after having created him, Genesis 2:16. Moreover, God made all the birds of the sky to come "to see how he would name them, and in order that all living would bear the name given to it by man," Genesis 2:19.
After the creation of woman, the human species multiplied in the earth; but notice well that, according to the Bible, until the construction of the tower of Babel, "all the earth had one language and the same words." In that time, there was then one mother language.
Immediately after the flood, in order to thwart the wild imagination of men, who sought to "make a name for themselves," the Eternal God descended to confuse "their language, so that they could no longer understand the speech one of another," Genesis 11:7. From that time, men were dispersed over the whole earth.
God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, I Corinthians 14:33. Consequently, the confusion of languages took place with order, and methodically. It is interesting to note what the historian Hill says about this:
"We conclude however that the change effected in the languages was not at all universal, preventing each individual from communicating with his neighbor. This miraculous change was effected systematically and with order, separating the different families which descended from the three sons of Noah... each speaking a language unknown to the others" (The Emigrants Introduction, p. 7).
The Rivalry of Sanskrit Today, we don't have an exact knowledge of the language people spoke before the flood. But, among the languages known to man after the flood, Hebrew is certainly the most ancient, and from all indications, it is ancient Hebrew, which is most like the original language. It is, after all, in ancient Hebrew that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
Always, the entire world is deceived by Satan, Revelation 12:9, who is always attempting to counterfeit the perfect work of God. Also, in order to confuse the mind of man and to hide from him the truth about the languages, Satan diverts the attention of linguists to another ancient language — a language old as well as mysterious!
"As Hebrew was the origin of a literature, particularly ancient and venerable, one will try... to find in it the roots of all other languages... [further on] Leibnitz and Adelung (in the work Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde, by Adelung) set themselves to discredit this prestige of the Biblical idiom, but it could not be altogether discarded until the rivalry of a language not less respectable in age... Sanskrit, the sacred language of the Hindus" The Indo-Europeans, Carnoy, p. 10.
There is the astonishing answer! This is how Sanskrit became considered the mother language of the Indo-European group! Philologists, rejecting the Bible, tried to find an excuse to utterly disregard the language of the Bible in order to replace it, with the sacred language of the Hindus!
The Rapport Between the Semitic and European Languages Indeed, there exists a definite rapport between Sanskrit and Hebrew, thus between the languages of the Indo-European family (which includes Celtic) and the Semitic family, but it is ancient Hebrew which is the mother language, since it is the oldest language known to man.
The philologists would have difficulty denying this fact. Prichard proves it irrefutably, and demonstrates the direct rapport between the two groups of languages, giving a long list of Semitic and Indo-European words, in which he compares their similarities.
The agreements between Hebrew and the languages called Indo-European are indeed more apparent than one might think. Prichard even adds that the Celtic language constitutes an "Intermediate Link" between the two families; this declaration is entirely correct (Eastern Origin of Celtic Nation, Prichard, p. 191).
Now let us see how the Israelites, on arriving in Europe, acquired a language called "Indo-European" whereas they spoke "a Semitic language" before the captivity.
The Language of the Tribes After the Liberation During their long captivity, the tribes of Israel found themselves entirely dominated by the Assyrians, whose slaves they were. Consequently, it is very natural that the influence of the conquerors, all this time, was considerable, not only in the area of social mores and religion, but also in that of language.
We must remember that Israel was taken into captivity "to Halah, and in Habor, by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes."
So what language was spoken in these regions which made up part of the country of the Medes? Ancient Persian, obviously! This language, which linguists class as Indo-European, is known to us by the inscriptions of the Achaemenidae kings, from Darius I (522-486 B.C.) to Artaxerxes Ochus (358-338 B.C.), when it was the official language. To be mentioned also, from a documentary standpoint, is that these inscriptions were usually trilingual: in old Persian, in Elamite, and in Babylonian.
As a result of their long captivity among peoples who spoke a language "classified" in the Indo-European group, the Israelites, in the end, forgot their maternal language. At the time of their migration to Europe, as Celtic peoples, they already spoke a dialect, or a dialect language that the world recognizes as being of the Indo-European family (The Celts of la Tene, Hubert, Pref.).
Several historians indifferently use the term Celt to indicate both the Gauls in particular, and the Celtic people as a whole. Notice the words of Zeller:
"Today, one applies it especially to the races who spoke a language whose dialects existed in Britain, in the country of the Gauls, in the mountains of the Scotts, and in Ireland, races more or less homogeneous, who... peopled not only Gaul, but most of Switzerland and the British Isles" (Gaul and the Gauls, pp. 11-12).
During the years of captivity, the ancient Hebrew spoken by the Israelites mixed gradually with the language of their conquerors and of the Medes where they had been taken for their captivity. Under this constant influence the Israelites finally lost their own language.
A comparison between ancient Hebrew and ancient Celtic is not an easy one to make, because both these ancient languages are almost totally lost. Nevertheless, modern philologists base their theories on such groundwork and arrive at scholarly conclusions! The Gauls did not leave us one writing. Their religious literature and rites were transmitted orally by the intermediaries, the Druids.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica notes that the oldest poems in the Celtic language, notably the "Book of Dun Cow," (1100 A.D.) present declamatory lines and rhythms strongly resembling the poetic verses of the Old Testament (Article: "Celtic Literature").
In conclusion, let us repeat, during their captivity, the Israelo-Celts acquired a dialect language, which was nearly unknown until the Roman conquest. In literature, it was strikingly similar to Hebrew, even in style and vocabulary.
The Example of Judah The fact that the Israelite tribes, during their captivity, ended up losing their mother language raises doubts in the minds of skeptics. This seems to them incredible, impossible!
Let's note, however, that the change in question did not take place as rapidly as one might think; it was effected during two or three generations, in other words, in the course of a hundred years. Let's also remember that the Israelites were not only under total bondage to their conquerors, forced to serve them, but that they had been taken into captivity in a foreign place, far from their homeland, in areas where their mother language was not at all understood.
To demonstrate this effect, we have only to consider the example of Judah, who remained in captivity only about 70 years. In spite of this short length of time, the Bible declares that on their return to Palestine, "their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jew's language; but according to the language of each people," Nehemiah 13:24.
Unlike Judah who, after its liberation regained Palestine, the ten tribes of Israel headed toward the northwest of Jerusalem, as we have already indicated in previous chapters.
The question for linguists, as well as for historians, is to look at the evidence that the Israelites are not all Jews, and that the ten tribes of Israel actually make up the Celtic peoples, whose origin has always been a mystery to History!
Philologists and historians, if they would accept the Biblical truth, would have no difficulty finding the common denominator between the Hebraic language, and that of the Celtic peoples who ended up establishing themselves in Western Europe!