>OK, this is what we're looking for. We need to see some evidence for similarities between Hebrew and Saxon and English. At this point, I'm not informed enough to accept or deny them. You're making the claim that such similarities exist, that they result from the Lost Tribes having become the Celts, and you reference an impressive resume indicating extensive knowledge of all of this.
Hey, c'mon! I want to have a Christmas too. {ggg}. I've said I am no authority on linguistics and have to rely on those who are. I have pointed you to a book by Capt which has an extensive section on linguisitics. It is right on target for this subject, it is available, and it is yours for only a few bucks. Beyond that, the topic is all yours. (Please report back with your findings.)
Now what is fascinating to me is this pre-occupation with language as indicator of anything. Language after is all is a LEARNED characteristic of a people. There is nothing whatever inherent about it. You can go to Berlitz (or Target) and BUY yourself a language! Thus language is an indicator or very little if anything at all.
To be relevent in this search, how about looking at things which are INHERENT, not learned or otherwise obtained? Genetics immediately springs to mind, but that field today besides being incredibly complex is apparently rife with fraud. (See FR threads 1 to 2 years old for more than you ever wanted to know about the subject. "Customized Genetic Reports" are apparently available if you are willing to pay for your desired results, and that is repeatedly reported to have happened.)
Then how about APPEARANCE. People who are related do tend do look alike, but that can be very subjective. But there are some characteristics which lead some people to believe they can make some rough cuts at whether people are related or not.
Take race/color. Most of us can tell the difference between the blacks of Africa, the Indians of the Americas, the Orientals of Asia and the Whites of Europe, on a rough basis of course. But intermarriage, which has been there since Joseph married an Egyptian (and before) makes both appearance and genetic identification more difficult if not impossible. Since the time of Jacob/Israel the Israelites have gone through nearly
200 generations of marriage including intermarriage. Gotta make gene testing difficult, as well as positive recognition by appearance.
But even with those caveats, blacks, indians, asians and whites do generally have distinguishing characteristics. Do you think Jews have special distinguishing characteristics? Do they have a special "semitic" appearance. Should they look at least vaguely like Yassir Arafat? Well at least maybe look different than white Europeans? Or are Jews not whites? But Europeans have blue eyes? Not really, of course but David in the OT was described there as being "ruddy and fair". That sounds like a ruddy blue-eyed blond Irishman! (Of course David was not Jewish, he was an Israelite. But that's another story for another time.)
Well how about noses? Don't Jews have a nose like Yassir? Maybe, maybe not. Lots of races can have big noses. What other race is left? Which race do Jews belong to? Not the ...gasp... European & American whites race?
In order to fulfill
Hosea 1:10,11 the offspring from BOTH the
children of Judah and the
children of Israel would have to come from a
single ethnic group which displayed such common characteristics as may be observed in the following Jews, who just happen to look like ordinary
non-Jewish Celts from anywhere else in the world. Here are a number of well known Jews who don't look like blacks, or indians, or asians:
Joseph Lieberman, Paul Newman, Ted Koppel, Harrison Ford, Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., Kirk Douglas, Kevin Costner, Stephen Breyer, Yitzhak Rabin, Michael Landon, Lorne Greene, Mike Wallace, Benjamin Netanyahu, William Shatner, Douglas Fairbanks, Cary Grant, Leonard Bernstein, Paul Simon, Ariel Sharon, David Frost, Morley Safer, Ari Fleischer,
Jack Benny, Alan King, Casper Weinberger, Carl Reiner, George Burns, Red Buttons, Sam Levinson, Bernard Goldberg, Robert Downey Jr., Dustin Hoffman, Michael Douglas, Peter Sellers, Tony Curtis, Edward G. Robinson, Wolf Blitzer, Mel Torme, Paul Wellstone, Peter Falk, Leonard Nimoy, Jerry Springer, Arlen Spector, William Cohen,
Barry Goldwater, Robert Rubin, William Roth, Howard Metzenbaum, Hyman Rickover, Robert Reich, Russ Feinberg, Stanley Mosk, Arthur Burns, Milton Friedman, Bill Kristol, Victor Borge, William Kristol, Warren Rudman, etc., etc, etc.
The Celts and the Jews are genetic cousins. All are offspring from Jacob/Israel, and all are Hebrews, Semites, and Israelites. This PRIMARY characteristic is worth comparing, unlike something which is externally obtained and as irrelevent as linguistics.
(Please report back with your findings.) Now what is fascinating to me is this pre-occupation with language as indicator of anything.
This is all so unnecessary. I don't have to report anything, I'm not putting forth a claim.
I'm demonstrating a good-faith willingness to examine your claim. The burden is on you to make your case.
What is more reasonable, for me to investigate from scratch every claim that anyone might make, or for those making the claims (and presumedly having a head start on the evidence trail) to present their evidence? Clearly, the latter, and that is the understood etiquette of the burden of proof: it falls on the claimant.
Toward that end, I have questions concerning language. This is not a "pre-occupation," it is just the first question on which I happened to focus. The reason for the repetitive posts on the question of language is because of the repetitive non-responses to it.
Let's stipulate that language is not the only determining factor in sorting through this, it's but one potentially useful tool. Often it fits nicely into the context of the other evidence on a question, but not necessarily always. Fine.
If your claim that the Lost Tribes gave rise to the Celts is true, then the question of language has one of two possible consequences: either it supports your claim, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then there needs to be a more compelling line of evidence which leads us to discount the linguistic evidence as not compelling. I freely concede the possiblity that, given competing bodies of evidence, the linguistic argument might be discounted in favor of another. I think that's reasonable.
So, does the linguistice data support the Lost Tribes theory on the origin of the Celts, or not?
If so, then post it and lets move on.
If not, then post that, and explain why we should ignore it.
I'm trying to give you a fair hearing. Why is that so problematic?
