Wrong, I'm afraid. The concept of "pure Celtic ancestry" is mythical, deriving primarily from the mostly British attempt to define "Celt" very narrowly, primarily to some people living in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall and Brittany. They base that definition of the limits of the Roman Empire. While those people are indeed Celts, that narrow (and very commercial) definition ignores most of Celtic history which is based primarily in continental Europe.
>#2 Celts are not Jewish.
Nor did I ever imply they were.
>They are a branch of the Indo-European or Aryan language group. Nothing Semitic about them at all.
To deny that Jews are not Semitic certainly goes against every genetic and historical understanding. Where then does the phrase "anti-Semitic" come from with regard to Jews?
Language is a terribly innacurate way to try to determine anything about who is who. While it is popularly taught in classrooms, often in easy "meet the science requirement" classes for non-scientists, no serious archeologist uses language to determine migratory patterns and peoples identity.
>#3 The theory that the Jewish population of Palestine ever totaled 10% of the world's population is ludicrous.
I didn't say that either. I was talking about the ISRAELITE population. The worls ISRAELITE and JEW are not interchangeable. But then, it's not every day you get to learn something new. {ggg}.
>If they had ever had that amount of population they would have been major world powers,
But the Israelites of Davids time were a major power. To say world power is thinking pretty big, but due to limitations of transportation and communication there were no world powers then in the way we think of them today.
However big powers then like big powers today are defeated in war by other big powers. Thus the Assyrian capture of the Northern Kingdom, and all that followed.