Chapter 7
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!