16 November 2012

Forum # 27 (aug. 21 - okt. 22, 2012)

Posted 21 August 2012 - 09:06 AM
View PostAbramelin, on 21 August 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:
I think the Romans had Latin as their mother tongue.

Written language can be a representation of spoken language, or of information.
Information, can be computer language, chemical formulae, data. It is not always language in the way that people usually communicate.

Latin is like our telegram-style language.
It uses as little possible words and letters, to communicate as much information as possible.

That's why Latin was never an oral language of the natural people.

=== Posted 23 August 2012 - 12:23 PM
Notes on the word "Scyth".

Oswald Szemerényi devotes a thorough discussion to the etymologies of ancient ethnic words for the Scythians in his work "Four old Iranian ethnic names: Scythian – Skudra – Sogdian – Saka". In it the names of Herodotus and the names of his title, except Saka, as well as many other words for "Scythian," such as Assyrian Aškuz and Greek Skuthēs, descend from *skeud-, an ancient Indo-European root meaning "propel, shoot" (cf. English shoot).

to shoot - english
schießen (schiessen) - german (scheißen = to shit)
skyde - danish
skjuta - swedish
skyte - norwegian
skjóta - icelandic
schieten - dutch (schijten = to shit)
skiete - westfrisian (skaite = to shit)
sjitte, sketten - newfrisian (skite = to shit)
SKIATA - OLB and Oldfrisian

It looks like the Norwegian and the Westfrisian word for "to shoot" are still closest (sounding) to the Greek "Skyth".
(Also, the verbs to shoot and to shit might be etymologically related, since meaning and sound seem to have been originally nearly identical.)  

=== Posted 23 August 2012 - 05:43 PM
 From today's newspaper (Trouw), and relevant IMO in the issue of Dutch 19th century culture politics.
"Local authorities sometimes subsidized the performing arts. But this was more out of fear than out of love for theater; a stipulation about these subsidies from Amsterdam in 1835 mentions the urgency 'to regulate popular entertainment, in order to dominate the popular spirit and prevent undesirable extremes'."
Article title: "Iconen van Amsterdam" (Icons of Amsterdam).
Original text: "En door de locale overheid werden de podiumkunsten ook wel gesubsidieerd. Hoewel dit meer uit angst dan uit liefde voor het toneel gebeurde; in een Amsterdamse bepaling over die subsidies uit 1835 gaat het over de noodzaak om 'het volksvermaak te regelen, daardoor de volksgeest te leiden en alle verkeerde uitersten te voorkomen."

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9

=== Posted 23 August 2012 - 06:49 PM
View PostAbramelin, on 23 August 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:
Could what you quoted from today's newspaper not have to do with what happened in Belgium at that time?

Sure, but not only I think.
Some of Verdi's opera's were also political and meant to inspire revolution (against the Austrian occupation). Art can have that effect.

=== Posted 25 August 2012 - 10:02 AM
Some notes on words for (folk-) tale.

tale ==> to tell, tala (swedish), vertellen (dutch), "taal" is dutch for "language"

saga ==> to say, sagen (german), zeggen (dutch)

sprook (dutch, usually as diminutive: "sprookje") ==> to speak, spreken (dutch, sprechen (german)

mär (german, usually as diminutive: "märchen") ==> mērijan (protogermanic: to tell, announce), (night-)mare!

We focus on written sources but must stay aware that oral history is much, much older.

=== Posted 05 September 2012 - 10:01 AM
The foreword to Jensma's OLB translation (2006) starts with:
"Tot nu toe is iedere editie van het Oera Linda-boek bezorgd door mensen die geloofden dat de tekst was wat ze zei, namelijk een handschrift dat [...] in 1256 en daarvoor in 803 na Christus nog tweemaal was gekopieerd, ..."

English translation:
"Thus far, every edition of the OLB was delivered by people who believed that the text was what it claimed to be; a manuscript that [...] was copied in 1256 and before that twice in 803 AD, ..."

In some earlier posts I made the mistake of assuming that Liko "Ovira-Linda", who added a letter dated 803 CE, had made a copy of the OLB. (I referred to the letters from Liko and Hidde as 'copyist letters'.)

The OLB does not claim that it was copied in 803, only that it was copied in 1256 CE. How many times it was copied before that is not mentioned nor suggested.

Why Jensma writes that (people believe) it was copied twice in 803 CE is a mystery to me.

=== Posted 05 September 2012 - 11:32 AM
A revealing quote about the OLB

1927 ~ M. de Jong, "Het geheim van het Oera-Linda-Boek"

"Er zijn er, die door de brede kruinen van het Lindenwoud de eeuwenoude Friese vrijheidszang horen ruisen; er zijn er, die zich onder het dichte loverdak wanen aan de bron ener zuivere godsopenbaring; er zijn er ook, die in het Oera-Linda-Boek het bedrieglijk kunstwerk van machten der duisternis zien, vervaardigd met het blijkbare doel de grondslagen van Kerk en Maatschappij te ondermijnen."

"There are those, who hear the ancient Frisian song of freedom rustle through the wide tops of the Lindenforest; there are those, who have the illusion of [...] having found the source of a pure divine revelation; and there are those, who see the OLB as the deceptive masterpiece of dark forces, made with the apparent goal of undermining the foundations of Church and Society."

 === Posted 05 September 2012 - 01:36 PM
Several OLB 'hoax-theorists' (including Jensma) have suggested that 'believers' are suspicious, because some Nazis (including Himmler) liked the OLB.

In this context, the following quote is relevant:

From "Herman Wirth und die Ura-Linda-chronik" by (German psychiatrist) Arthur Hübner (1934):
"Die Ura Linda- Chronik ist nicht nur demokratisch, führerfeindlich, pazifistisch in ihrer Grundeinstellung, sie ist im ganzen ein Machwerk ohne Saft und Kraft..."

"Not only is the OLB democratic, führer- [Hitler-] inimical, and pacifistic in its foundations, as a whole it is a worthless fabrication ["without juice and power"]."

=== Posted 06 September 2012 - 07:38 AM
View PostAbramelin, on 05 September 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:
This is the 21st century.

Much of our 'modern' culture is still based on very old nonsense.
Example: genital mutilation of children by jews and muslims.

But most others simply think it is a hoax/forgery/mystification/falsification or whatever one may want to call it.

Most of these 'simple thoughts' are based on old, biased (politically and/or religiously colored?) conclusions.

For example the two most common arguments against authenticity:
1) The claim that the paper is too new was never seriously documented. It is misinformation.
2) The argument that the language is too modern, or that certain (suggested) etymologies are too ridiculous. This thread has demonstrated that these arguments are weak. OLB fitted less well in the 19th and 20th century paradigms, than it fits with the information that we have today.

If OLB was fake, this should have become more obvious through the years, not less, as is the case.

 === Posted 06 September 2012 - 09:14 PM
A quote worth noting

From Goffe Jensma (1992) in "Lees, leer en waak ~ Het Oera Linda Bok. Een rondleiding":

"The OLB is a remarkable construction. It presents itself rather as a pit - excavated in layers - that one can enter, than as an orderly erected building. I want to descend into this pit - a dangerous enterprise, I know - with the reader."

Original text:
"Het OLB is een merkwaardige constructie. Het laat zich veeleer zien als een in lagen uitgegraven put waar men in kan lopen, dan als een overzichtelijk opgetrokken bouwwerk. In deze put wil ik - een gevaarlijke onderneming, ik weet het - met the lezer afdalen."

So... what would be 'dangerous' about reading ('descending into') the OLB?

=== Posted 07 September 2012 - 11:12 PM
View PostAbramelin, on 06 September 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:
This is not just about etymology, but also about syntax.

OLB-syntax is hardly more similar to Dutch than it is to German...
Dutch and German syntax are very similar.
Something to think about.

 Abramelin: Yeah, Germans won't have much problems translating the OLB either.

You did not get my point.
At schools in the Netherlands, Flanders and the German speaking countries, children learn to speak "Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands" (common civilised Dutch) and "High German" respectively. Specially since we have radio, cinema and television, people have started to more speak one and the same variety of their language.

Yet, rural areas, individual cities and cultural groups (like the Ashkenazi Jews) had - and sometimes still have - their own specific dialect. I come from an area where even neighboring villages had their own specific variety of dialect.

From North Holland to Friesland, to South Denmark, to East Germany, to North Italy, to Luxembourg, to West Flanders and back to Holland again, there have been - and sometimes still are - countless dialects (and don't forget Yiddish, South-African, etc.). Between those 'language areas' there are no clear borders. The modern 'national' languages have developed through schooling (a political issue). In fact there is a sliding scale from Dutch through 'Limburgs' to German.

While these dialects are sometimes so different, that the people from different areas have such a different vocabulary and pronunciation, that they will not understand each other when they speak fast, the SYNTAX of all these dialects is roughly the same.

That means that the syntax that they share must be very old, much older than you want to accept.  

=== Posted 09 September 2012 - 07:48 AM
View PostAbramelin, on 08 September 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:
If you agree with me that Old English must have been very similar to Old Frisian (or Old Dutch if you like) of the early middle ages, then you will know that the syntax has changed.

You speak of Old-English as if it was one uniform language, but there must have been countless varieties.
We know that many words were similar or the same, but I don't know how that is with syntax.

Same with the Scandinavian languages: similar vocabulary, but slightly different syntax.

When Willibrord and Bonifacius came here to convert the 'heathens' they didn't need an interpretor. Why? because they must have spoken the same language.

They may very well have spoken several languages, just like us.
When I travel, I usually don't need an interpreter either.

You are talking about 1200 years ago. What do you think, that people back then had the means and opportunity to study many different languages, like we have now?

Since there has always been intercultural travelling and trading, there will always have been people who spoke more than their own mother-tongue. That does not mean they "studied" languages the way we do at school or university.

Some 2000 years ago the Romans traded with the Frisians.

My father did not learn foreign languages at school, but his uncle, who had lived in the Dutch Indies, taught him some Malayan. During his military service in New Guinea (now West Papua) in the fifties, he learnt to communicate (basics) with tribal Papuas, and in recent years I heard him communicate (basics) with Chinese and Japanese people (he worked at the Zuiderzeemuseum in Enkhuizen). He never did any language-course.

His great-grandfather (2nd half 19th century) traded cattle with dealers from London and the US. He spoke English, without ever having learnt it at school.
 Abramelin, on 09 September 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:
The OLB language should have been close(r ) to Old English.

I donot agree. It is closest to some of the local and ancient dialects from Westflanders to Northfriesland.

That there are not many written records of those dialects, does not mean they did not exist.

If the language, stories and laws of the OLB were invented by 19th century masterminds, 'Fryan' is an insanely good reconstruction of a proto-Frisian, aboriginal language.

Unprecedented and yet unchallenged.

 ===Posted 23 September 2012 - 09:35 AM
Improvement of the existing translations ~ letter Liko Ovira-Linda, 803 CE.

original text

translation Ottema 1872
... de vreemde koningen;
deze weten dat wij hunne grootste vijanden zijn,
omdat wij hunne lieden toespreken durven
over vrijheid, recht en vorstenplicht.

translation Sandbach 1876
... foreign kings,
who know that we are their greatest enemies,
because we dare to speak to their people
of liberty, rights, and the duties of princes.

translation Wirth 1933
... den fremden Königen.
Diese wissen, daß wir ihre größten Feinde sind,
weil wir zu ihren Leuten zu sprechen wagen
von Freiheit, Recht und Fürstenpflicht.

translation Jensma 2006
... de moffenkoningen.
Dezen weten dat wij hun grotste vijanden zijn,
doordat wij hun volk durven toespreken
over vrijheid, recht en vorstenplicht.

"Haarlieden" or "haarlui" (slang: "hullie") is oldschool third person plural: them (modern Dutch "hen" or "ze").
See Geïntegreerde TaalBank.

So, in my opinion, it should be:
Dutch: "... doordat wij tot hen spreken durven..."
English: "because we dare speak to them..."
German: "... weil wir zu ihnen sprechen wagen"
... which is something significantly different than the known interpretations.

Over de Linden's forefather Liko - who had been at their court - had dared to criticize the foreign suppressors directly, not through 'their people'.

Interestingly, "jullie" (gijlui, gijlieden; plural "you" or "you people") has become 'common civilised dutch', while the other forms are fading away.

=== Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:25 AM
Just found an interesting source:
The Science of the Swastika by Bernard Mees (2008; Central European University Press)

See chapter 6 on Herman Wirth, who translated most of the OLB into German and published it with comments in 1933.

=== Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:39 PM
Something more to ponder on:

odla (Swedish, verb)
= (English) grow, cultivate, culture, raise, breed, incubate, farm
= (Dutch) verbouwen, kweken, telen, cultiveren

odlar (S)
= (E) grower, breeder
= (NL) kweker, teler

odling (S)
= (E) culture, cultivation, production, breeding, growth, farm(-ing), incubation, tillage
= (NL) verbouw, kweek, teelt

Wralda's od came in them, and now they bore 12 sons and 12 daughters, every Yol-time twins...

And these Swedish words existed before Reichenbach coined his "od".

=== Posted 10 October 2012 - 07:29 AM
View PostAbramelin, on 10 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:
Otharus is convinced it is part of the next sentence...

Because there is a full stop between DRAMA and WRALDA'S, and nothing between WRALDA'S and OD. I know you think it is a hyphen, but many hyphens look like full stops and vice versa.

 Here is an example of a few pages ahead, where a full stop looks like it could have been be a hyphen.

 === Posted 14 October 2012 - 02:44 PM
View PostVan Gorp, on 13 October 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:
When actually did the first text of Plat-Ho (high plate, everybody knows that :-) come above the water (or from the shelve). [...]
1) discovery of original first hand Plato scriptures (do they exist, that would be a small wonder ;-) [...]
2) the first mentioning of Plato in time

That is a very good question.

I read somewhere that the oldest manuscripts were from c. 900 CE, but don't know a reference.
If that is true, imagine how much the various copyists may have left out, changed and added!

Someone who thought the texts were important enough to copy, may very well have had some sort of religious or political agenda. He surely will have had more and less favorite parts... (and own ideas about it.)

So how much of it is authentic?!
I guess there will be studies about this.

Of course it's not only the texts that are supposed to be from 'Flatteau' himself, but there was also his famous student Aristotle (aristo-kratos => aristo-telos => purpose, end, goal?) who referred to his teacher, but for his work we have the same question of authenticity.

What I have learned so far is that those works were studied more in the Arab world first, when they were still taboo in the early Christian world.

=== Posted 14 October 2012 - 03:05 PM
View Postthe L, on 13 October 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:
Is there any sum of your research so far?

Yes it would be good to make our personal summaries.

I think Alewyn Raubenheimer made a good one as one of his last posts here or at Historum.
To compare our different viewpoints would be interesting too, as mine will be different of those by Abe and Puzzler.

When I have more time I will try to make an effort.
For now I will limit myself to this summarizing consideration:

If OLB would be a hoax, this should have become more evident through time, but the opposite is the case.

All classical arguments against authenticity have systematically been refuted.

=== Posted 14 October 2012 - 05:12 PM by Abramelin
Otharus, here it is:

Ok, a summary of my reasons why I think the OLB is not what it is supposed to be, an authentic MS of ancient European history.

- Absense of archeological proof. No 'citadels', no other examples of the OLB script, or no truely ancient text that tells about an ancient European/Nordic empire (ranging from Spain to the Baltic).

_ Not a single word about for example a megalithic structure like Stonehenge, though it was well known by the ancient Romans and Greeks (and Stonehenge is located in Britain, the 'penal colony' of the Fryan Empire). Not a single word about the construction of any Western European megalithic structure for that matter, though they were still being built long after 2194 BC. All we hear about is those 'citadels' - that must have been all over Europe, but that no one has found any archeological proof of.

- The OLB was in the possession of a man who wanted his family history to look greater than life.

- This same man owned books of which we can almost read literal quotes from in the OLB (Volney's "The Ruines" for instance - check my OLB blog in my signature), plus books about ancient scripts, Old Frisian language, and books about Greek and Roman legends and myths, mythology in general, ship-building, and so on.

- This same man had written texts before that showed similar linguistic errors, and similar (philosophical) ideas as we can find in the OLB.

- Contradictory testimonies of witnesses. One (by a head teacher called "Sipkens") even said this man - decades before the OLB was published - showed him an 'ancient' document of his family history, and even read and recited from it, to this man Sipkens. Later on he claimed to Ottema and Verwijs he was not able to read it, and that he needed their help...

- One testimony - from his grandson - said that in the evening several learned men came around in Enkhuizen, discussed what this guy, Over de Linden , had fabricated during the days before, and that they "all roared with laughter".

- Linguistics: linguists then and now say the language used in the OLB can not be really ancient: it contains modernisms, anachronisms (like a Godfreyath the Sea-kening, the Wit-kening = Godfried the Seaking/Viking/ BEDRVM = bedroom, a word introduced during Shakespearian times and not seen before). And they say the language is simply TOO MODERN.

- It has been said many times in this thread that linguistics is not an exact science, meaning: we all can have a shot at it. Heh, I agree, so why use it to prove the OLB? It won't prove anything. It's mere play with words.

- Old English (Willibrords language) is said to be VERY similar to Old Frisian... but it's not anything like  the OLB language. So... the OLB language resembled Frisian medieval law texts thousands of years ago, then centuries later that language must've resembled Old English texts from thousands of years later, and then, in 1256 AD it magically changed back to what it was thousands of years before.

- About those Vikings: the OLB mentiones 'witkings' or 'witkenings', like the Vikings were known in south-eastern France and north-eastern Spain: Vitkings. Also a medieval Frisian legend telling us about the Viths, according to that legend another word for Jutes.. Their king, their VIKING king would no doubt have been called Vith-kening.

=== Thank you for the list, Abe.
Can you point out the (max. 3) arguments that are most convincing in your opinion?
I will focus on commenting to them for now. 

=== Posted 15 October 2012 - 06:51 AM
View PostAbramelin, on 15 October 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:
You better pick 3 yourself you want to comment on.

No, I think they are all weak.
A theory is as good as its best arguments.
A collection of many weak arguments don't make a good theory.

Besides, in the course of this thread I have refuted all of them already and as you very well know I am not here just to spend time or be a high-quantity poster.

Or do you think all of the arguments on your list are of the same quality?

Come on, make it more easy for newcomers.
What are your three best reasons to believe OLB is a hoax?

=== Posted 15 October 2012 - 07:53 AM
View PostVan Gorp, on 14 October 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:
From "Kelten En De Nederlanden Van Prehistorie Tot Heden", door Lauran Toorians. Published by Peeters, Bondgenoten Laan 153, Leuven.
... shop is the one with the low windows.

Yes that is a beautiful shop. I will have a look.

Secondly it is generally known that in Greek/Roman/Catholic time, original scriptures that did exist but contradicted the Catholic and dominating world view, were burned/corrupted on large scale.
[...] I think the only reason why he didn't is the time where his (and Becanus' contemporaries) work is published: better not challenge Catholic/Hebrew predominating world view.
[...] It is rather curious that we can explain Latin/Hebrew words with our own language better than they can with theirs.

=== Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:22 PM
View PostAbramelin, on 14 October 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:
Ok, a summary of my reasons why I think the OLB is not what it is supposed to be, an authentic MS of ancient European history.

Lets refine the question.

You believe it is a 19th century hoax.
I believe it is a 13th century manuscript (or a copy of it).

If it is a (copy of a) 13th C. manuscript, that does not mean that all information in it has to be true, as in theory it could still all be fiction.

This already disqualifies several of your arguments, does it not?
So why - in your opinion - does it have to be a 19th C. hoax and can it not be a (copy of a) 13th C. manuscript? Or can it?

=== Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:41 AM
View PostAbramelin, on 14 October 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:
- This same man [Cornelis Over de Linden] owned books of which we can almost read literal quotes from in the OLB (Volney's "The Ruines" for instance - check my OLB blog in my signature), plus books about ancient scripts, Old Frisian language, and books about Greek and Roman legends and myths, mythology in general, ship-building, and so on.

1) Volney: Please give at least one specific example of those 'almost literal quotes'.
It is unknown if he had Volney's book before or after OLB was translated and published.
Some things in OLB agree with Volney, others don't.
Volney is not fiction, it was based on research, similar to what we try to do.
If Cornelis was raised with ideas and trivia from the manuscript (his grandfather may still have been able to read it), Volney will indeed have appealed to him.
2) Books about scripts, language, mythology: From 1848 till 1867 he tried to figure out the manuscript by himself. Herds of people were and are interested in mythology.
3) Books about ship-building: He was a ship builder!

=== Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:47 AM
View PostAbramelin, on 14 October 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:
- The OLB was in the possession of a man [Cornelis Over de Linden] who wanted his family history to look greater than life.

That he "wanted his family history to look greater than life" is your interpretation, but we can agree that he had a touch of megalomania.

If it is true that his grandfather told him something about his descent when he was a little boy, and his father boosted about it too (as witnesses have reported), his megalomanic touch is perfectly understandable without having to conclude that OLB must be a hoax.

=== Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:57 AM
View PostAbramelin, on 14 October 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:
- One testimony - from his grandson - said that in the evening several learned men came around in Enkhuizen, discussed what this guy, Over de Linden , had fabricated during the days before, and that they "all roared with laughter".

This 'testimony' was written down - a century after it was supposed to have happened - by the housekeeper of this grandson's wife. She had it out of the third hand.

It is understandable that some members of the family had wished that Cornelis had never made the manuscript public.

There are testimonies under oath from the 1870s that confirm OLB's authenticity. Because they don't fit your theory, you label those as lies, while you take third-hand gossip seriously. If you want to be skeptic, you should be consequent.

 === Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:23 PM
View PostKnul, on 17 October 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:
What testimonies under oath do you mean ?

I will just give the fragment from "De Gemaskerde God" (Jensma, 2004) about this (sorry English readers, no translation this time).

Page 243, comments by Jensma are marked [GJ], mine [JO].

"Interessant is het bijvoorbeeld hoe Cornelis II [geboren 1833 - JO] zijn ruzies met de jonge baron Von Eichstorff kracht bijzette: 'Vader zegt het [dat wij van adellijke komaf zijn - GJ], en die weet het uit een boek met zulke gekke letters, die we niet eens kunnen lezen; Vader maar een woord of wat'. De twee mede-kwekelingen die dit getuigenis leverden waren zo zeker van hun geheugen, dat ze een kleine dertig jaar later [vóór maart 1876 - JO] samen met nog twee inwoners van Den Helder een zogenaamde 'gezegelde verklaring' aflegden: tussen 1848 en 1850 waren ze op de hoogte geweest van het bestaan van 'het handschrift'. Het bleek toen wel dat ze dit stuk nooit met eigen ogen hadden gezien."

Uit de voetnoten blijkt dat hiernaar verwezen is in Beckering Vinckers' "Wie heeft het Oera Linda-Boek geschreven?" (1877 - p. 11, 14) en brief L.F. Over de Linden aan Ottema d.d. 10 maart 1876.

Perhaps 'under oath' was not the right expression, I don't know if they went to a notary, but at least it was an official statement.

Anyway, my point was that there were several testimonies out of the first hand form the 1870s to support Cornelis' story.

The one that Abe mentioned is questionable because it was 3rd hand and written down a century after it was supposed to have happened.

=== Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:45 PM
View PostAbramelin, on 17 October 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:
Look Otharus, I have shown you the quotes.

My question was rhetorical, I knew you were bluffing when you said that Cornelis Over de Linden "... owned books of which we can almost read literal quotes from in the OLB".

It was me who posted the relevant Volney fragments 14 June 2011, post #5462, old thread:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here's a few fragments of The Ruines by C. F. [Constantin Francois de] Volney, of which Cornelis Over de Linden had two copies in his library.

Read online here: http://www.gutenberg...97-h/1397-h.htm

so that the existence of Jesus is no better proved than that of Osiris and Hercules, or that of Fot or Beddou, with whom, says M. de Guignes, the Chinese continually confound him, for they never call Jesus by any other name than Fot.

Christianity, or the Allegorical Worship of the Sun, under the cabalistical names of Chrish-en, or Christ, and Ye-sus or Jesus.

"Finally, these traditions went so far as to mention even his astrological and mythological names, and inform us that he was called sometimes Chris, that is to say, preserver,* and from that, ye Indians, you have made your god Chrish-en or Chrish-na; and, ye Greek and Western Christians, your Chris-tos, son of Mary, is the same; sometimes he is called Yes, by the union of three letters, which by their numerical value form the number 608, one of the solar periods.** And this, Europeans, is the name which, with the Latin termination, is become your Yes-us or Jesus, the ancient and cabalistic name attributed to young Bacchus, the clandestine son (nocturnal) of the Virgin Minerva, who, in the history of his whole life, and even of his death, brings to mind the history of the god of the Christians, that is, of the star of day, of which they are each of them the emblems."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So yes, Volney mentioned Fot, Beddou, Chrish-en, Ye-sus.

There are also sources that mention Minerva, Wodin, Alexander, Friso, etc.
Does that mean they have to be sources on which the OLB was based?

What are your "almost literal quotes"?

=== Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:13 PM
View PostAbramelin, on 17 October 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:
If the OLB is a true ancient account using at least a 2600 years old Frisian dialect/language...

We don't know how many times it was copied (and adapted?) between the first version from ca. 600 BCE till the last version that is supposed to be from 1256 CE.

The language of the OLB is not very different from Medieval Oldfrisian from the known sources. That is why it could be translated relatively easy.

Some words and expressions are very similar to the ones we still use, not only in Dutch, but also in English, German, Swedish, etc., but some words and fragments are still a mystery. This thread has many examples where various translators disagree and we are still finding improvements. (After 140 years of OLB being publicly known!)

Written language has changed more than oral language.
Lingua Franka used to be Greek and later Latin.
The known sources are not from people who had learned to write down the oral language of these regions; they were Latin schooled.

It is said Willibrord could use his own Old English to communicate with the Frisians, because their languages were very similar. But his language would have been gobbledeegook for those using the OLB language

'Very similar' is relative. Nowaday Frisian, Dutch and Westflemish are similar.
Syntax and vocabulary are almost the same.

Now imagine three people who each have one of those languages as their mother tongue, but none of them have learned to write them.
They have only learned to write Italian (at school, as their second language).
Now they try to write their mother tongue, phonetically.
On paper the varieties would look very different, but when they speak clearly and not too fast they can very well understand each other.

=== Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:54 AM
View PostAbramelin, on 18 October 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:
The 7th or 8th century language was a lot different from the 12th century language.

We only have a few written sources and they are not consistent.

The oral language will have had many varieties, as it still has.
But there is no reason to believed that it changed much in a few centuries, as common people tend to raise families with partners that speak the same language/ dialect.

=== Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:02 AM
View PostThe Puzzler, on 18 October 2012 - 04:09 AM, said:
From Proto-Germanic *aldran, whence also Old English ealdor, Old Norse aldr. ...

On Wiktionary:
From Latin altare (“altar”), probably related to adolere (“burn”); thus "burning place", influenced by a false connection with altus (“high”).

"Probably" means there is space for doubt.

äldre - Swedish (senior, older)
alt - German
ald - Frisian
old - English
oud - Dutch

That "altar" would have an etymological connection to "alt" / "ald" (old) is not a strange idea at all, IMO.

=== Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:47 PM
View PostAbramelin, on 18 October 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:
OK, I meant those names in Volney's book: Chris-en (OLB 'Kris-en'), Yes-us (OLB Jes-us), and Fot.
I haven't seen these names in one single paragraph together in any other book then the OLB and Volney's 'The Ruines'.

Fair enough. We can at least agree that it is a noteworthy co-incidence, but various explanations are possible.

=== Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:30 PM
View PostOtharus, on 17 October 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:
I will just give the fragment from "De Gemaskerde God" (Jensma, 2004) about this (sorry English readers, no translation this time).

Here is the translation that I made and posted 11 April 2011 in the old thread.

~ ~ ~
In 1876 a schoolteacher from Den Helder, Cornelis Wijs, remembered an incident that happened in 1831. He was working on a ship called Nehalennia, on which the father of Cornelis, Jan Over de Linden was also working. The latter had in joyous moods often taken pride in the fact that he descended from the oldest family of the world, and in the same context he would also ridicule nobility [dutch: “adel“].
Another two teachers that went to school with Over de Linden’s oldest son Cornelis [around 1848], remembered a similar incident. As a 14 year old schoolboy, this Cornelis II (1833-1868) would sometimes have fights with a fellow student from a noble family, a certain ‘baron’ Eichstorff, who took pride in his high descent. Cornelis would have said: “Your German noble descent means nothing to me; we are of much older nobility than you, and Frisian.” And: “Father says it [that we are of noble descent], and he knows it from a book with such strange letters, that we can‘t even read it; Father can only read bits of it.” The two fellow students who remembered this incident, as well as two other people from Den Helder made an official ‘sealed‘ statement [at a notary?], declaring that between 1848 and 1850, they had known of the existence of the manuscript (without having seen it themselves).
(free translation, DGG, p.241-243)

A similar statement by a sea-officer named W.M. Visser who had made a note in his diary on 23 December 1854. On that day Cornelis Over de Linden had told him about the book, that “not only was written in a strange language, but also with such strange letters, that he could not read it.” (DGG, p.243 and footnote)

=== Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:48 AM
View PostThe Puzzler, on 19 October 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:
By the gravestone of which mention has already been made her body is buried.

Yes, I should have checked that.
Original text, page 97:

LIK means (dead) body indeed, so apparently she was not burned.

=== Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:23 AM
My claim about the Fryas burning their corpses was not strong.

The only mentions of it are in the context of punishment.
It looks like they believed that out of the ashes of evil people, bad things would grow.
(Does this imply that they believed that from the ashes or remains of good people, good things would grow?)

p. 12-13, about people (and their mothers) who take another's freedom:
(Translations from Sandbach, 1876)
I advise you
to burn his body and that of his mother
in an open place,
and bury them fifty feet below the ground,
so that no grass shall grow upon them.
It would poison your cattle.

p. 43-44, about traitors (and their mothers and relatives) who show enemies the way, etc.:
he must be burnt.
The sailors must take his mother and all his relations
to a desolate island,
and there scatter his ashes,
in order that no poisonous herbs may spring from them.

=== Posted 19 October 2012 - 09:20 PM
If what is known as the OLB was indeed copied in 1256 CE by Hidde Oer-a Linda, it is a treasure for linguistics and the humanities. (IMO it is anyway, even if it would be a hoax.)
But that would only be the beginning...

 Nicolas Régnier: Allegory of Vanity - Pandora with empty Pythos, c. 1626.

 === Posted 20 October 2012 - 07:23 AM
View PostAbramelin, on 19 October 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:
The Vikings started their raids on Frisian territory just a little bit after Willibrord arrived here.
And we have proof they were here at that time by the hoards they left. On Wieringen for instance.

During the time Willibrord was supposed to have visited the Netherlands, much of the Netherlands were above sea level again.

Yes, I would not say the area was completely uninhabited.

Those raids may have started because the majority or elite had moved south.
Similar to the exodus out of Flanders of the elite (mainly to Leiden and Amsterdam) after the fall of Antwerp in 1585.
The 'Dutch' / 'Oldfrisians' may have moved back and forth in their low lands, depending on the threats or opportunities, from water, invaders or trade.

When the Romans came, groups may have migrated north above the rivers to avoid confrontation/ being enslaved. Etcetera.

 === Posted 20 October 2012 - 07:51 AM
My approach is to show why the mainstream idea about OLB - that it is an obvious hoax - is based on fallacies and weak evidence.

Once it is accepted that there is reason to have doubts, serious research will follow.

Alewyn Raubenheimer's approach, to jump straight to a big-flood and earth-axis-shift theory, is interesting and brave (and I have great respect for his work - we are here thanks to that), but it is too much for people who have not first gradually gotten used to the idea that OLB might indeed be a 13th century copy, or a copy thereof.

I just take it step by step.

That does not mean I don't also consider the overall content and how it might relate to other sources, languages, cultures, traditions, archaeological finds, etc.

That is actually part of showing why hoax theorists who used to claim that (some of) the content is utter nonsense are wrong.

=== Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:28 AM
View PostOtharus, on 22 October 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:
from this site (my underlinings):

Archaeological research of coastal farming communities on the southern North Sea coast, 2000-800 BC

Farmers of the coast is a research project revolving around the thesis that Bronze Age coastal communities were thriving farming communities with their own cultural identity and with a central position in communication networks.
There is hardly a region thinkable that is better suited for studying prehistoric communities on the North Sea coast than the Netherlands. Not only was its location central in a traffic geographical sense, but also can the Netherlands boast of having one of the best preserved Bronze Age landscapes in north-western Europe: the fossil landscapes of West Frisia. Therefore the project focuses on these extensively excavated but poorly published archaeological sites as case study of coastal farming communities.

This research project is funded by the Dutch Science Foundation (NWO) and Leiden University. The project is based at Leiden University under direction of prof. Harry Fokkens.

No comments:

Post a Comment