Evidence of Languages

HEBREW AND ENGLISH

Five Leading Scholars Prove the Link Exists

By

Pastor Jory Brooks (Canada)

The Language Connection

IS modern spoken English descended from the language of the patriarchs? Strong evidence now exists that it is, according to five leading language scholars, whose independent studies have all reached a similar conclusion. This language connection would, in turn, indicate some form of physical contact or migration in early times. Did Israelites of the age of the patriarchs visit the shores of Britain, settle there and impart their language? Evidence from historians shows how that may have taken place.

In ancient times, trading ships from the coast of Palestine sailed throughout the Mediterranean and as far as the coast of Britain. Where trading ships went, colonies soon developed. Now, as fascinating proof of this early colonization, leading language scholars have discovered amazing links between the modern English language and the ancient language of the Hebrews of the Old Testament. They tell their story in the paragraphs to follow, combining to present strong evidence that Hebrews themselves came to the British Isles at an early date. Our thesis is that between the beginning of the Egyptian captivity (1448 B.C.), and the Assyrian-Babylonian invasions (745-586 B.C.), Biblical Israelites first settled the shores of Britain. The result is a fascinating account of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Here are their stories:

1. Pritchard: A leading English language scholar

One of the 19th centuries' most notably famous language experts was James Cowles Pritchard, who lived from 1786 to 1848. Called 'the founder of modern anthropology,' one modern reviewer stated that he had "unquestionably done more than any other single individual to place Ethnology on a scientific basis." In his "Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations" (1857), he says that there is "a remarkable analogy" between the Hebrew-Semitic languages and the Celtic (which he spells old-style with a 'k' as in 'Keltic' ). He further states that the Celtic language "forms an intermediate link between [the Indo-European] and the Semitic, or perhaps indicates a state of transition" from Semitic to European languages. (p.349) Dr. Pritchard prepared a three-page chart tracing word origins showing his readers the connection between Celtic and Semitic, and states, "it does not appear probable that the idioms of North Africa are even so nearly related to the Semitic, as the latter are to the Indo-European languages."

Pritchard tells an interesting story demonstrating the connection between Hebrew and Celtic. He says, "From another I have learned that a crew of Bretons (i.e., Celts) understood the natives of Tunis [in North Africa]. How? Because the Kelt tongues were so like the Hebrew, and the Carthaginian was the same." (p.108) A ship from the British Isles had stopped in port in North Africa, in modern Libya, and the crewrnembers were surprised to be able to understand the natives who spoke Carthaginian, a Hebrew dialect.

An extended quotation from the scholarly Dr. Pritchard. dealing as he does with "pronominal suffixes," "vocables" and similar technical terms, would be beyond the capability and understanding of the average person. However, he summarizes by saying, "Consequently, even cautious investigators have not only given a list of Semitic elements in the Keltic, but have made the Keltic specially Semitic. " Does this have any relevance as to the origin of the Celtic peoples themselves? Prichard says, "A common language is prima facie evidence in favor of a common lineage ... Language is one of those signs of community of origin which is slow to be abolished - slower than most others." Pritchard believes that the Celts arrived in Britain from Asia, and suggests (p.380) two routes were used to travel westward to the isles: First, from Asia across Northern Africa and by sea to Britain; second, west from Asia and the Caucasus to Europe. Referring to other writers, he says, "With the Irish ... writer upon writer asserted for them an origin from Egypt, Persia, Palestine, or Phoenicia - especially from Phoenicia... The Phoenicians were what the Hebrews were, and the Hebrews were what is called Semitic... the Hebrew language... and the Keltic tongues... practiced the initial permutation of letters in their grammatical formations... Then there were certain habits and superstitions among the Kelts which put the comparative mythologist in mind of certain things Semitic; the Bel-tane, or midsummer-day fire of the Highlands of Scotland.. got compared with fire- worship of the Phoenician Baal. Then there were the words Bearla Fena, or language of Fene of the Irish annals... well translated by Lingus Pena, or Linge Punica - the language of Phoenicia." (p.75) Our tract, "The Hebrew-Celtic Connection." has further information about the origin of the Celts and their connection with the Hebrew nation.

One final important point indicates a connection with the Hebrews. "The evidence then, as far as it goes, is in favor of deducing the word, Kelt, from the wild Iberi... One of the several frontages of the Iberians may have called itself Kelt. " (pp. 66, 68) The Biblical Hebrews called themselves the "Ibri" or "Iberi", according to the Bible Archaeological Review magazine. (November-December, 1991, p.59)

2. Worrell: An American Semitic Scholar

Distinguished language scholar, William H. Worrell, Associate Professor of Semitics at the University of Michigan, proved that the Celtic language evolved in some way from both the Hebrew and Egyptian languages. In his 1927 book, "A Study of Races In The Ancient Near East," he says, "In the British Isles certain syntactic phenomena of insular Celtic speech have led to the inference that in this region languages were spoken which had some relation, however remote, to the Hamitic-Semitic family... the Insular Celtic languages, particularly colloquial Welsh, show certain peculiarities unparalleled in Aryan languages, and these remind one strongly of Hamitic and Semitic." (p. 46, 50) In very scholarly chapters, Dr. Worrell shows that the structure of the Hebrew, Egyptian, and Celtic languages is related. He says, "...we find that the Celtic languages of the British Isles, particularly in their spoken forms, differ from all other Aryan languages, and in a way to suggest the Hamitic or Semitic tongues... " (p,40)

How could the Celtic people exhibit language characteristics in common with both Hebrew and Egyptian? The eminent scholar theorizes that the ancestors of the Celts, before coming to the British Isles, had dwelt for a time in North Africa near Egypt, where they came into contact through trade with both the Hebrews and Egyptians. However, occasional trading would not change the entire structure of their language! A much greater intimacy with both the Hebrews and Egyptians is indicated. Would it not make more sense that the ancestors of the Celts were themselves Hebrews who escaped from Egyptian bondage westward? The Israelites were in an extended captivity in Egypt and thus would have had a solid mixture of both languages in their vocabulary, exactly as,the Celts had. Dr. Worrell comments on the ancient Hebrews, "We fancy we can almost follow them across into Europe, and imagine them the builders of Stonehenge and the dolmens of Brittany. Perhaps they were the people of Druidism. It may be that Caesar's soldiers heard in Aquitania [France] the last echoes of European Hamitic speech; and that Goidels and Brythons learned from Pictish mothers the idioms of this pre-Aryan British tongue. And may not this have been, indeed, the language of the whole Mediterranean race?" (pp. vii-viii) Many years of scholarship, and many pages of evidence, prove that Dr. Worrell was not far from the truth.

3. Hjelmslev: A Danish language scholar

Danish scholar, Dr. Louis Hjelmslev, completed independent research into the root structure of languages. In his book, "Language: An Introduction" (University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), he pointed out the great influence of the Semitic tongue upon the Indo-European languages. He states, "Even a language like Greek, which is considered one of the purest Indo-European languages and which plays a greater role than any other in comparative Indo-European studies, contains only a relatively small number of words that can be genetically accounted for on the basis of Indo-European." (p.63) Dr. Hjelmslev states that most European words are borrowings from non-Indo-European languages. In fact, "a genetic relationship between Indo-European and Hamito-Semitic [i.e., Egyptian-Hebrew] was demonstrated in detail by the Danish linguist Hermann Moller, using the method of element functions." (p. 79) This is an important point. The similarity between Hebrew and English goes far beyond the mere resemblance of similar sounding words. The element-functions represent a "genetic relationship" between English and both Hebrew and Egyptian. (p.83) These languages are therefore related in their very root structure, showing a common origin. Given these facts, a group of Danish language scholars has proposed eliminating the separate language categories of Semitic and Indo-European, combining them into one new category called, "Nostratic, a name proposed by Holger Pedersen for the languages related to our own," namely Hamito (Egyptian) and Semitic (Hebrew). Interestingly, the word, 'nostratic,' is taken from the Latin word, "nostras," meaning, "our own countrymen." (p. 80) Yes, the Semites, he says, are our own countrymen, because both language streams indicate a common origin in their very root structure.

4. Blodgett: An American language scholar

Dr. Terry Blodgett, chairman of the Southern Utah State College Language Department, received international attention in 1982 as a result of his research, which discovered "a major Hebrew influence" in the roots of the English language. A newspaper report commented, "Recent discoveries concerning the Germanic languages suggest there must have been extensive Hebrew influence in Europe, especially in England, Holland, Scandinavia and Germany during the last seven centuries of the pre-Christian era [700 B.C. to Christ]. " These dates take us back to the conquest of the "lost" ten tribes of Israel, who were removed out of Palestine by Assyria and dispersed to other lands between 845 and 676 B.C. Dr. Blodgett's doctoral dissertation was on "Similarities In Germanic and Hebrew " which deals with these discoveries. He states that his research has "traced various tribes of Israel into Europe." Dr. Blodgett presented his research in seminars in America, Germany, and Switzerland during the 1980's. For more information about the migrations of the dispersed Israelite tribes, ask for our tract, "The Real Diaspora."

5. Mozeson: A Hebrew scholar

In his encyclopedic work, "The Word, The Dictionary That Reveals the Hebrew Source of English." Hebrew language scholar, Dr. Isaac Elchanan Mozeson, gives over 5,000 English words with a Semitic origin. Dr. Mozeson teaches the English language at Yeshiva University, and completed ten years of original research in this subject. His conclusion was "that English and Hebrew are profoundly connected. " His findings show that "many more words should be acknowledged as borrowings from the Hebrew. Some of these giant oversights include ogre (from mighty Og, king of Bashan) and colossus (a Greek version of the Hebrew Gollius, familiar to English speakers as Goliath). " Do some words sound alike in Hebrew and English? He says, "There are hundreds of'English and Hebrew words that sound remarkably alike and mean the same but are not cited by linguists. A few of these are abash and boosha, albino and labhan, evil and avel, lick and lakak, regular and rageel, and direction and derech. " Further evidence of a connection exists in word meanings. He tells us, "Many names of animals only have meanings in Hebrew. Giraffe means 'neck' and skunk means'stink'" in Semitic speech. A few additional examples from Dr. Mozeson are given in the adjacent box. His scholarly encyclopedia of the Hebrew origin of English words was published in 1989, quickly sold out, and has not yet been reprinted.

SUMMARY

The research of other scholars also substantiates this evidence. For example, famed Celtic scholar, John Rhys, in The Welsh People, speaks of, "convincing evidence of the presence of some element other than Celtic... We allude to an important group of Irish names formed much in the same way as Hebrew names are represented in the Old Testament. " (p. 66) Many of these scholars further assert that the Celtic ancestors of the modern English people spoke a language which was strongly influenced by both Hebrew and Egyptian down to its very root structure. Yet only the ancient Israelites of the Bible, fresh from hundreds of years of Egyptian captivity, would exhibit such a unique language style.

Historians have often written about the "Phoenician" ships that sailed the Mediterranean Sea to Britain in early times, but few relate the connection between the Hebrew and Phoenician languages. The Bible Handbook by Dr. Joseph Angus, D.D., states, "That the Hebrew language was the common tongue of Canaan and Phoenicia is generally admitted. " (p. 13) In our tract, "Ancient Hebrew Sea Migrations," we show that a significant portion of the so-called Phoenician trade was in reality Israelite. Knowledge of this little-known history sheds important light on Bible history and prophecy.

THE HEBREW SOURCE OF NORTHERN TONGUES

[adapted from “The Tribes” by Yair Davidiy]

TERRY MARVIN BLODGETT in 1981(c) published a Ph.D. thesis (“Phonological Similarities in Germanic and Hebrew”, The University of Utah, 1981) in which he proved that the original tongue of the northern “Barbarians” who overran Europe was Hebrew. These peoples are commonly referred to as “Germanic” since some of them had sojourned at one stage in Germany and their language had been adopted by the German “natives”. The peoples in question however had little real connection to the present day inhabitants of the area of Germany. Blodgett, now Professor of Languages, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, Utah, USA, showed how it is academically accepted that approximately one-third of all “Germanic” vocabulary is of an unknown (non -Indo-European) origin. There were also other linguistic features that need explanation such as certain peculiarities in the rules of pronunciation:

“The Germanic sound shifts and gemination [i.e. double-sounding of consonants as found in Hebrew] are not to be explained on the basis of lndo-European linguistics”.

These foreign non-Indo-European elements are attributable (said Blodgett) to Hebrew incursions recognizable in the areas of phonology, morphology, and lexicology.

“English, Frisian, Dutch, Flemish, High and Low German, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and lcelandic, as well as the extinct languages of Gothic, Old Norse, Old Saxon, and others comprise one of the Indo-European groups of language commonly called Germanic. On a broader scale, the Germanic branch of languages shares many features in common with the Italic, Greek, Celtic, Slavonic, Indo-lranian and other Indo-European groups”.

Even so the Germanic branch of these languages has a non “lndo-European” component comprising approximately one-third of the total: It is this element that Blodgett identified as HEBREW!!! Blodgett proved his case using terminology and a great many examples of a technical nature. [That there was a non-lndo-European basis for the Germanic languages is generally accepted in academic circles. The nature of this basis has not been decided upon.] A crude but reliable enough notion of the overall tendency of Blodgett’s work is as follows:

At some early stage, there occurred a series of sound shifts in the Germanic language or languages, the lndo-European “bhrator” became : “brother”, “peter” became “father”, etc. “p” became “f”’, “t” became “th”, “w” became “ch”, b, d, and g also changed.

Opinions concerning the date of this Germanic Sound Shift give dates varying from 2000 BCE to 9 CE. On the one side, John T. Waterman (“A History of the German Language”, 1966) says “the general consensus of scholars is that the Germanic Sound Shift began probably not much before the fifth century B.C., and that it was essentially completed by the last pre-Christian century”, i.e. from ca. 400 BCE to 100 BCE. Waterman bases his case on the fact that words in Germanic borrowed from Greek in the 400s BCE also underwent the shift whereas words taken from Latin in the first century BCE did not.

“On the other hand, Heinz F. Wendt (“Sprachen”, 1977) believed that the shift had been essentially completed by 500 B.C.” Overall it is assumed (Blodgett quotes sources) that the sound shift occurred around 500 BCE give or take a century or two. All Germanic dialects took part in the shift so it is assumed that the change took place whilst the parent groups were still in the north, in Scandinavia and Northern Germany. The period of 500 BCE (for the said “Sound Change”) is the one most authoritative opinion seems to converge on. Whether it occurred before 500 BCE or in the following era the most important point for us is recognition of the fact that it did occur.

A lot of reasons have been proposed to explain this shift but the bottom line is that the cause is generally ascribed to ethnic factors implying racial mixture.

S. Feist thinks:

“that the northern peoples were originally non-Indo-European, who learnt their Indo-European from the broad-headed Alpine race....”

Waterman said:

“It is reasonable to assume that a non-Germanic substratum had some influence upon the language of those lndo-Europeans who migrated to the area in northern Europe which later became the Germanic homeland ...“

Waterman appears to assume that “Indo-Europeans” moved to northern Germany where there already existed a non-Indo-European speaking element and that these influenced the “lndo-Europeans”. Our (Brit-Am) own studies show the opposite. We have evidence that peoples from the East, of Hebrew descent, via Scythia invaded Germany and influenced the “Indo-European” natives.

The newcomers from Scythia according to archaeology in east Scythia used Aramaic as their major language. There is some evidence that they also used Hebrew and that the Lost Ten Tribes prior to their exile had used both Hebrew and Aramaic. This knowledge is based on archaeological finds.

Some of the Israelites (e.g. those who were east of the Jordan according to inscriptions) before their exile spoke an Aramaic dialect similar to Hebrew. The Scythians in east Scythia must have used Hebrew as well as Aramaic. New work by Scandinavian scholars such as Dr. Dr. Kjell Artuns “Runer” (Oslo, Norway, 1994) and Orjan Svensson (of Blekinge in Sweden) have proven that the first Runic inscriptions in Scandinavia wore written in both Hebrew and Aramaic dialects. Orjan Svensson has shown that the language of some of these inscriptions is almost certainly Hebraic! In other cases it is Aramaic or in a Hebrew-type related tongue. Early Nordic dialects as well as early English ones still retained a large number of Hebrew words and Hebrew characteristics. Remnants of these are still to be found in the English language.

The Germanic Sound Shift can best be explained by the mass presence of former Hebrew-speakers. The same changes that occurred in “Germanic” languages occur in Hebrew according to fixed grammatical and phonetic rules. Blodgett points out that people who from birth made the said changes would naturally have tended to speak as if the changes also held in a foreign language that they may have been forced to use at short notice.

Even technical sophisticated details concerning rules of the Sound Shift in Hebrew were continued into Germanic. The Sound Shift is not the only factor demonstrating this same principle which seems to hold throughout all possible examples.: e.g. Hebrew rijchah ‘sense of smell’ and verb form rijach [pronounced “ray- ach”] ‘to smell’ compare with German riechen ‘to smell’.

“..The {sh} of Hebrew was usually represented, sometimes by {s}, and occasionally by {st} in Germanic. This is not only true of Biblical names such as Shaul - Saul, but also of ancient words such as Hebrew shaphah ‘to scrape, form, shape, create’. Two words appear in Germanic similar in form and meaning to the Hebrew “shaphah”: the first is Old Norse skrap and English scrape; the second is Old Norse skap and Old Saxon scapan, which eventually developed into High German shoepfen and English shape”. In Ancient Hebrew there were also changes, “shiboleth” became “siboleth” between one Tribe and another (Judges 12;6). Blodgett gives tens of examples to back each of his claims up and he goes through and explains each one of them. The total number of examples reach into the hundreds, and each example is a good one!!

“Gemination, or the doubling of consonants [e.g. apple pronounced as “ap-ple”, “middle” is pronounced as “mid-dle” ]... while seen sporadically throughout all Germanic dialects in general, is far more developed in the West Germanic areas. This phenomenon of gemination has an amazingly close parallel in Hebrew... ” In West Germanic dialects (e.g. Frisian, Anglo-Saxon) there are a sizeable number of words showing gemination which are similar in form and meaning to words in Hebrew.

In Hebrew you have “kabal” meaning “to complain, cry out, oppose, get ahead of someone”. “Kabal” in Hebrew is pronounced as “Kab=bal” with a gemination or doubling of the “b” consonant. KABAL gave rise to the English “squabble” = to quarrel noisily, and “quibble” meaning “to argue in an attempt to receive the largest portion”. In this as in very many others you have a word that sounds the same, follows the same grammatical rules and means the same in both languages! Geminations are found in Gothic, Old Norse, and Old English. There are other parallels between Hebrew and the Old Germanic tongues that are of a technical nature. The parallels include much vocabulary. Professor Blodgett presents a list containing hundreds of detailed examples.

There are several sources that provide additional examples of similarities between “Germanic” tongues and Hebrew in vocabulary. The one that most impressed me was “The Origin of Modern Culture Languages and their Derivation from the Hebraica,” by Professor Karl Rodosi, 1891. This work also adequately proves that the so-called Germanic tongues must have been formed by peoples who originally spoke Hebrew. The implications of these studies regarding ancestry are applicable to West Europeans but do not encompass most of the modern Germans. The case is similar to that of the present inhabitants of the USA who now nearly all speak English though only a portion of their ancestors came from Britain.

A few examples culled at random from Rodosi include:

English “BEAR”: bore or bare-borne: from Hebrew “OBER” pass over. The “v” and “b” are interchangeable in Hebrew.

English “BEAT” from Hebrew “BAT” trample, kick.

English “BECOME” from Hebrew “KOM” come into appearance, arise.

English “BLOW” from Hebrew “BLOW” swallow.

English “BURN” from Hebrew “BAER”.

English “BURST” from Hebrew “PRATS”.

English “BUY” from Hebrew “BUY” request.

English “CHOSE” from Hebrew “CHIZEH” search out, chose (Exodus 18:21).

English “CLOTHE” from Hebrew “CHELATZ”.

English “DARE” from Hebrew “ADIR” might.

English “DIG” From Hebrew “DACHA” ditch.

English “DO” from Hebrew “ADAH” cause.

English “DRIVE” from Hebrew “DARBEN” urge forward, drive on.

English “EAT” from Hebrew “CHIUT” give life to.

English “FEEL” from Hebrew “FElL” effect.

English “HEAR” from Hebrew “HEIR” arouse, awaken.

English “LIGHT” from Hebrew “LAHAT” flame, illuminate.

English “MAKE” from Hebrew “MAKIN” prepare.

English ‘WEAN” from Hebrew “MANAH” answer.

English “RIDE” from Hebrew “RIDEH” rule, subjugate.

English “SET” from Hebrew “SIT” to place.

English “SHALL” from Hebrew “SHAL” request, require.

English “TEACH” from Hebrew “TOKEACH” admonish.

English “WILL” from Hebrew “WEYAL” will.