Posted 24 April 2011 - 04:10 AM
I would like to start discussing this article:
The Oera Linda Boek - A literary forgery and its paper
====>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 26 April 2011 - 02:08 PM
D is for Del-ta
A possible clue to why 'Fryan' (the language of the OLB) is older than old-Greek.
====>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 26 April 2011 - 02:10 PM
W is for O-mega
Wikipedia:
Omega (majuscule: Ω, minuscule: ω) is the 24th and last letter of the Greek alphabet. ...
The word literally means "great O", as opposed to Omicron, which means "little O". ...
In the New Testament book of Revelation, God is declared to be the "alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last".
The number 24 was highly symbolic for the Fryans (with their 6-spokes JOL), being 2 x 12 and 4 x 6 and 8 x 3.
The shape of the capital reminds me of the wheel-posture (chakra-asana), which is the last posture of a traditional sequence of a yoga session.
It looks like a wheel on a flat surface.
And the 'minuscule' looks just like our w (dubble-u), the lines being curved in stead of straight.
The sound of the Fryan W or VV must have been similar to that of the Greek O-mega (long stretched O).
WR.ALDA in Greek would spell Ωρ-άλδά or ωρ-άλδά.
This makes O-mega indeed a 'sacred' letter as the 'majuscule' represents the wheel (JOL), the first symbol of Wr-Alda, while the 'minuscul', represents the first letter of Wr-Alda.
### Posted 27 April 2011 - 02:32 AM
The Puzzler, on 27 April 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:
I won't even go there but Aboriginals have a bag they call it a dili bag or as we say a Dilly-Bag - it's for carrying things in, a drawstring type pouch bag they carry things in - almost like a bucket with a drawstring...weird. Anyways...
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there are language connections.
When I was in Ozzy I noticed more of them (was in Cairns too last year).
Most striking is BOOMERANG <= BOOM-RANK (tree-branch).
### Posted 27 April 2011 - 12:53 PM
Some additional notes on the Over de Linden family
====>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 28 April 2011 - 09:07 AM
The Puzzler, on 28 April 2011 - 04:10 AM, said:
What I see though, is why the Christians probably have a fish symbol for Jesus.
Wikipedia:
Ichthys (more commonly spelled Ichthus, or sometimes Ikhthus, from Koine Greek: ἰχθύς, capitalized ΙΧΘΥΣ or ΙΧΘΥC) is the ancient and classical Greek word for "fish." In English it refers to a symbol consisting of two intersecting arcs, the ends of the right side extending beyond the meeting point so as to resemble the profile of a fish, used by Early Christians as a secret symbol[1] and now known colloquially as the "sign of the fish" or the "Jesus fish."
Iota (i) is the first letter of Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), Greek for "Jesus".
Chi (ch) is the first letter of Christos (Χριστός), Greek for "anointed".
Theta (th) is the first letter of Theou (Θεοῦ), Greek for "God's", the genitive case of Θεóς, Theos, Greek for "God".
Upsilon (u) is the first letter of huios (Υἱός), Greek for "Son".
Sigma (s) is the first letter of sōtēr (Σωτήρ), Greek for "Savior".
But what you say may be yet another (extra or main?) reason to use the fish as a symbol.
(The more ambiguous meanings the better in symbology.)
### Posted 28 April 2011 - 09:19 AM
A preposterous translation by Jensma
====>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 01 May 2011 - 03:36 AM
Abramelin, on 29 April 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:
Bezum, Otharus, McKay, and Alewyn, and all those other people who are able to read Dutch, or are Dutch, please tell me: what is your impression of this guy Halbertsma?
I could also show you his letters to Grimm so you would understand how fanatic this guy was about anything Frisian (language, history, legends, and so on).
Just consider this: he was called "Mister Fryslan".
He went to very great lenghts to put Friesland and Frisian heritage on the world map. He was in contact with German, Danish, and English and other linguists and historians, and did his utter best to promote Friesland.
...
If there was anyone motivated to create a manuscript like the OLB, or be the inspirator of it, then it was Halbertsma.
It is because Halbertsma was a part of the Frisian Elite, and because he knew pretty much everything there was to know at that time about Frisian language and history, that he could have created something that the Frisian elite would have loved.
But the OLB had the opposite effect on them.
It terrified and insulted them.
They hated it.
This is one of the reasons why someone with his skills and motives could not have done it, for he would have done a much better job pleasing the crowds.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The OLB contains elements that even someone like Eelco Verwijs felt embarrassed about, and he can be considered as one of the most open-minded, provocative, hedonistic bohemians of his time. Jensma describes him as completely unethical (I think we would love this guy).
Example: the fragment with the foul Fin "nilst min kul navt sâ skilst min swêrd ha". (Ref.: letter Verwijs to Over de Linden)
### Posted 02 May 2011 - 02:39 AM
Abramelin, on 01 May 2011 - 06:12 PM, said:
... the Rüstringer dialect, Halbertsma's favorite Old Frisian dialect...
You keep repeating this, as if it would be relevant.
1. It's not, because 'Fryan' is more like old-Westfrisian than like Rustringian.
2. I doubt it's true. Your source is Menno Knul, I guess. What is his?
3. Halbertsma is no suspect for the reasons I gave before.
### Posted 03 May 2011 - 06:21 AM
Abramelin, on 02 May 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:
You got it, and it's not absurd.
For the record:
I agree with The Puzzler that it is indeed absurd to suggest that the OLB could have been created by just forgetting everything (or much) of accepted history and then "making up anything you like".
There is nothing in the OLB that proves it cannot be a (copy of) a 13th century copy of a 9th century copy (etcetera).
If so much of it would have been "made up" (in the 19th century), it would be a piece of cake to demask it as a hoax by now. It obviously is not.
To create something like that out of what was known in the 19th century, combined with the fantasies people had in that time:
IMPOSSIBLE.
It does not fit into any tradition: nothing of it's kind was ever made before it, nothing was ever made after it.
### Posted 03 May 2011 - 06:34 AM
Abramelin, on 02 May 2011 - 08:32 AM, said:
-1- Yes, you said that several times. Well then, give us an example.
-2- I got the idea, and just that, from Menno Knul. For the rest, I did my own research as I have tried to show you
-3- I also explained what I meant with 'suspect'... that it could be equally true that he created (part of) the OLB narrative as an exercize in Old-ish Frisian (based on the Old Rüstringer dialect, with added 'old-ish' and invented words), but that someone else 'used' (=stole or borrrowed) his work, and carried on with it to create what we now know as the OLB.
1. I gave several examples earlier but you never commented on any of it. I don't blame you, since language is not one of your interests. Also, my examples, are not solid proof yet, I have to invest more time into that first.
You like to believe that the OLB language is more similar to Rustringian than to any of the other old-Frisian dialects (and you try to brainwash us into believing that too, by repeating it like a parrot).
I asked you again: what is this belief based on?
2. I'll be more clear:
Why do you think Rustringian was Halbertsma's favorite dialect?
3. Give one, just one example of an "invented word".
Something else:
If your theory would be true, why does the Rustringian area play such an insignificant role in the book, while it's all about the area that is now Westfriesland (including Texland)?
### Posted 03 May 2011 - 07:06 PM
Abramelin, on 03 May 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:
The OLB fits like a glove in that Frisian tradition to create an alternative ancient history.
No single work from the traditional Frisian historiography was created anonymously as a hoax, nothing on artificially aged paper, nothing in an unknown language, in an unknown script.
To name just a few major differences.
Nothing of its kind was made before, nor after it.
Quote
Well, have you ever shown a sign of skepsis? Do you even know what it really means?? It's nothing to do with being cynical and a principal disbeliever of anything out of the ordinary as many on this site seem to think, it has to do with doubt.
I doubt Jensma's, Knul's and your hoax-theory, and I have shown why.
I voiced my doubts about the conclusions of the paper study.
From the beginning I have tried to find proof that OLB is a hoax.
The more I know, the less doubt I have that OLB is authentic.
Just putting all the facts together and using logic and reason.
### Posted 03 May 2011 - 07:30 PM
Abramelin, on 03 May 2011 - 07:14 PM, said:
That's where you are wrong: it is thought that the work of Ocko Scharlensis (or part of it) was a hoax created by a XYZ ( I forgot his name, but I will find it ) from the 17th (?) century.
Some people like to believe that yes, but there is not the slightest proof.
I have read the whole thing, and I doubt this theory from the same orthodox-Christian Frisian elite, that tend to call anything lies that escaped Roman Catholic flames.
### Posted 04 May 2011 - 05:30 AM
OK let's try to settle this.
For more clarity, I'll seperate the two main questions.
It started with you mentioning (#4552, 1 May):
"... the Rüstringer dialect, Halbertsma's favorite Old Frisian dialect..."
I reacted (#4557, May 2):
"You keep repeating this, as if it would be relevant.
1. It's not, because 'Fryan' is more like old-Westfrisian than like Rustringian."
You (#4558, May 2):
"-1- Yes, you said that several times. Well then, give us an example."
Me (#4612, May 3:)
"1. I gave several examples earlier but you never commented on any of it. (...)
You like to believe that the OLB language is more similar to Rustringian than to any of the other old-Frisian dialects (...).
I ask you again: what is this belief based on?"
You (#4615, May 3):
"About that Rüstringer dialect: I'd say, Google "Halbertsma" AND "Wangerooge". On that island they spoke a dialect which was very close to the Rüstringer dialect, and Halbertsma published about it. I remember I posted a link to a pdf where his finds and conclusion were being discussed. Don't ask me what post, please."
Me (now):
Are you saying that the OLB language is more similar to Rustringian because "Halbertsma published about it"?
That is twisting the facts to fit your reality in which Halbertsma was the (main) author of the OLB (example number 1).
Your reasoning must be something like this:
"Halbertsma made the OLB, he published about Rustringian, therefore the OLB language must be based on Rustringian."
No one ever established that the OLB language is more similar to Rustringian than to any other vartiety of old-Frisian (and no one ever will, because it's not).
You just like to believe that, because IF it were true, it would support your theory.
### Posted 04 May 2011 - 05:32 AM
Otharus, on 04 May 2011 - 05:30 AM, said:
That is twisting the facts to fit your reality in which Halbertsma was the (main) author of the OLB (example number 1).
Now the second part:
Again, it started with you bringing up your favorite pet-theory (#4552, 1 May):
"... the Rüstringer dialect, Halbertsma's favorite Old Frisian dialect..."
I reacted (#4557, May 2):
"2. I doubt it's true. Your source is Menno Knul, I guess. What is his?"
You (#4558, May 2):
"-2- I got the idea, and just that, from Menno Knul. For the rest, I did my own research as I have tried to show you"
Me (#4612, May 3:)
"2. I'll be more clear:
Why do you think Rustringian was Halbertsma's favorite dialect?"
You (#4615, May 3):
"Why was it Halbertsma's favorite dialect? Because it was the most ancient known Frisian dialect around. (...) From what I read - and no, not by Menno Knul - he wanted Friesland back on the worldmap and did everything he could (with his brother) to succeed in that. So - also as the linguist he was - he would no doubt love that ancient dialect."
Me (now):
Aha, so you just assume it was his favorite dialect. It is not an established fact at all.
Now have a look again at your initial quote:
"... the Rüstringer dialect, Halbertsma's favorite Old Frisian dialect..."
Example number two of how you twist facts to fit into your reality.
### Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:54 AM
Abramelin, on 04 May 2011 - 07:06 AM, said:
I still think that the Rüstringen dialect comes closest to the OLB language.
HIR IS ESKRIUIN
====>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 07 May 2011 - 06:28 PM
"SEX" in the OLB
Earlier I did a language exercise with the symbolic numbers TWELVE and THREE. Now it's time for the one 'in-between', SIX.
====>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 08 May 2011 - 02:27 AM
Abramelin, on 07 May 2011 - 07:19 PM, said:
Now you tell me Otharus: when will people visiting this thread - assuming they are still on the fence about it - be convinced that the OLB is not a hoax/forgery/fantasy/whatever??
Must be me, but I think that as soon as we find - here I go again - the remnants of a citadel as described in the OLB, or another example, anywhere, of the OLB script (manuscripts, inscriptions), and dated to many centuries before present, that then they will be a lot more convinced of the OLB being a true ancient account of European history.
Of course evidence of the physical kind would be the most easy way.
It's just NOT the ONLY possible way, that's what I say.
If I remember correctly from the history of philosophy, it was in the time of Descartes that the sciences split into physical/ material and metaphysical, the latter becoming the domain mostly of the church.
(Our main sciences still mostly have a materialistic approach. One can see that most easily in medical science where even psychosomatic and psychiatric 'dis-eases' are approached on a physical level, so drugs can be prescribed and telling the patient that the cause is genetic or otherwise material, rather than social or emotional, which is, again, more difficult to understand and deal with.)
Now we're touching yet another angle, namely philosophy, and I'm not specialized in that either. Just wanted to point out that the solution to a problem does not always have to be in the 'material world'. Language, culture, consciousness, things that are hidden in our (collective) consciousness can be valid too, they just are more complex and need more abstract thinking.
I don't know if I express myself clearly, I just woke up, it's almost 7 am.
Anyway, maybe someone who is more into philosophy can shine some light on this.
Quote
Another thing, and I do know you don't have easy/much access to the internet: can you tell a bit more about that Dunkirk Transgression of around 300 BC I talked about a few pages back?? The pdf I posted for Alewyn is all the serious and scientific info I could find about it.
It's surely an interesting one, but I will probably not be very active here in the next few weeks, as I'm preparing to go travel again, to arrive back home by the end of this month.
### Posted 08 May 2011 - 08:42 AM
Welcome Menno,
and thank you for your post, as well as all the work you did, making sources available (I recently read the letters you added to your site, which was very helpful).
I have thought of writing you to discuss your theory, but this is much better. I hope Goffe Jensma will feel challenged some day to join too.
One thing to start with, something interesting I just found out.
Knul, on 08 May 2011 - 06:09 AM, said:
I have not yet retrieved the famous word 'foddik', which clearly belongs to it.
Greek:
φωτιά - fire, light
### Posted 08 May 2011 - 09:34 AM
Knul, on 08 May 2011 - 06:09 AM, said:
The letters make clear, that nor Cornelis over de Linden nor Verwijs could have written the Oera Linda Boek.
I agree to this.
Quote
Both manuscripts were in the possession of the bookstore of the Over de Lindens in Enkhuizen. Probably there have been problems about an inheritance between the families, so that Cornelis over the Linden came to collect his share. A grandson calls it 'stolen'.
On your website I read that this grandson was Hein Kofman. Can you tell us more about it?
I have never read anywhere that the two manuscripts have been in the possession of any Over de Linden bookstore. Can you give your source for this too?
### Posted 09 May 2011 - 09:33 AM
Thank you for the answers, Menno.
Here's my comments to them.
Knul, on 09 May 2011 - 04:40 AM, said:
1. The information, that the manuscript of the Oera Linda Boek and Worp van Thabor have been stolen by Cornelis over de Linden comes from an article in the Enkhuizer Courant of January, 9th 1934. In a letter to the editor Hajo Last (died 1934 in Bussum, age 83) writes that he was a colleague of Hein Kofman (grandson of Aafje over de Linden, aunt of Cornelis over de Linden. He writes that 'Nephew Over de Linden has stolen them from my mother'. Source: Het Geheimzinnige Handschrift van de Familie Over de Linden, pag. 11. This might be gossip.
It might be gossip, but it might also be true.
If it's true, it's of extreme relevance.
Remarkable that Jensma did not mention this in his book.
I hope you will add more from this source to your website.
Quote
2. Joast Halbertsma specialized in the origin of the Frisian language and law. The main source for both of them was the Riustringian dialect, he was very familiar with. See literature. A particular aspect of the Riustringian dialect was the availability yet of negative verbs (nildon - they did not want), which are found frequently in the Oera Linda Boek. Negative verbs disappeared in the younger stages of Old Frisian.
"Nildon", which can either be called a negative verb or just a contraction of "ne wildon", is not exclusively Rustringian.
Old Westfrisian Laws (#55 or LV):
IEF HI NELLE,
Als hij niet wil,
If he (the magistrate) will not (do so),
SO NE ACH HIM NIMMA IOWA LADA NER BOTA,
zo acht hem niemand laden noch boeten te geven,
no man need tender him oaths or compensation,
NER NIMMA SINE BAN THELDA.
noch niemand zijne ban dulden.
nor obey his orders.
Quote
3. Foddik. (...) The word must come from the Jordaan dialect of Amsterdam, which has been investigated by Joast Halbertsma and Johan Winkler. (...)
Why must "foddik" come from the Jordaan dialect of Amsterdam?
Because that dialect was studied by Halbertsma?
In that case, there is a similar mistake going on as with Rustringian.
I suspect that your reasoning is like this:
1. Halbertsma wrote the OLB.
2. He studied Rustringian and the Jordaan dialect.
3. The unknown word "foddik" must come from the Jordaan dialect.
It's interesting to know if "foddik" was part of the Jordaan dialect, but whether or not this is true, it does not add to the proof that Halbertsma did it.
In theory it's possible that the OLB was inspired by various languages and dialects, but it's equally possible (and in my opinion more likely) that those languages and dialects have similarities with the OLB language because the latter is indeed ancient, and they stem from it.
Quote
4. About the very old bookstore of the family Over de Linden in Enkhuizen, please read the information below (in Dutch). Aunt Aafje Over de Linden, who gave the manuscripts to Cornelis over de Linden, was married to Pieter Bais, who joined the family as a bookseller in Enkhuizen. (...)
First, a correction:
You have confused two people with the same name:
Cornelis' aunt, Aafje Over de Linden (1798-1849) was married 1. to Hendrik Reuvers (1796-1845), 2. to Koop Meijlof (ca.1804-ca.1875)
The other Aafje (a.k.a. Antje) Over de Linden (1854-1924) was married to book printer and publisher Pieter Bais (1850-1926). This Aafje's father was a cousin to the second degree of Cornelis Over de Linden (1811-1874).
For a more complete and more accurate Over de Linden genealogy, see here.
Second, and most importantly, you seem to have assumed that the manuscript was in the possession of any Over de Linden bookshop, as it does not say so in your quotes.
Conclusion: This is not an established fact.
### Posted 10 May 2011 - 06:46 AM
Knul, on 09 May 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:
In 1845 Cornelis over de Linden, Staderman and Munnik travelled to Enkhuizen to visit aunt Aafje Over de Linden (Vijzelstraat), obviously to discuss the inheritance, but it took till 1848, that aunt Aafje handed the manuscripts over to Cornelis Over de Linden. Reuvers, who opposed to the transaction, died in 1845.
About the source of the first part of your quote, here's a part of my earlier post:
Otharus, on 19 April 2011 - 08:02 AM, said:
Earlier we have read about Cornelis Over de Linden's version of the story of how he got the OLB manuscript from his aunt Aafje in Enkhuizen.
Let's first have a look at three other versions by other people.
(Translated from DGG p.243)
version 1
Over de Linden's stepson-in-law Jacob Munnik told in 1876 that in 1845 he went with Cornelis and the book-binder Ernst Stadermann from Den Helder, to Over de Linden's mother in Enkhuizen, where he [Cornelis], apparently without succes, tried to convince her to give him an old family-book. [Source: Beckering Vinkers, "Wie heeft het Oera Linda-Boek geschreven?", p.31]
version 2
Related to this, Beckering Vinkers states - without mentioning a source - that Over de Linden in 1848 finally went to get this book in Enkhuizen, together with his son Cornelis II [aged 15 by then]. [Source: Beckering V., "Wie heeft ...?", p.15]
version 3
A third witness report is from a certain Hajo Last in Enkhuizen, whose mother lived next to the mother of Over the Linden. Last said that Over de Linden regularly visited his mother and...: "Once when he was visiting in Enkhuizen, he came to his cousin, and that was a widow Kofman [if this was in the 1840-s her husband was still alive], in the Rietdijk, now called the Vijzelstraat [...]. She said to him: 'Kees, I have some old manuscripts here, from your grandfather, and he always said: "Those are meant to be passed on to my heir ['stamhouder']".' That's how his cousin gave them to him; I still remember him saying it, sitting at our table."
[Footnote Jensma:] This was from a sent-in letter in the 'Enkhuizer Courant' of 9-1-1934. With this 'widow Kofman' Cornelia or Kee Reuvers is meant (born 1818), the daughter of 'aunt Aafje' and Hendrik Reuvers. Apparently she lived in the old Over de Linden family-house at the Rietdijk after her husband Rijkent Kofman had died; in 1840 they lived at the Nieuwe Zeedijk 391.
Version three is complex and needs to be analysed:
It is told by Hajo Last (1) in 1934, who has heard Cornelis Over de Linden (2) tell his story (see underlining; before 1874), about what his cousin the 'widow' Kee Kofman-Reuvers (3) said to him (when she 'handed over' the OLB) about what his grandfather Andries Over de Linden (4) used to say (before 1820).
Over de Linden had told his story to Hajo Last, visiting Last's mother, who was the neighbor of OL's mother Antje Goedmaat, who died in 1874.
If versions 1 and 2 are correct, Cornelis tried to retrieve the OLB in 1845, in which he succeeded in 1848. His own 'official' versions (from 1867 on) also say that he 'received' the OLB in 1848.
It's plausible that Cornelis has waited with trying to retrieve the book till his uncle Hendrik Reuvers had died in 1845.
The testimony of Jacob Munnik (stepson-in-law of Cornelis) is in conflict with the story of Cornelis, who claimed that his aunt gave it to him by surprise (him not knowing about it).
I cannot think of a reason why Munnik would have made this up.
Jensma suggests that this concerns another old family book (not the OLB).
The second part of your quote (that aunt Aafje gave Cornelis the manuscripts) is according to the story of Cornelis, but I suspect he has been lying about this, because:
1. his story does not agree with Jacob Munnik's story
2. it also does not agree with the story of Hajo Last, who wrote in the Enkhuizer Courant of January 9, 1934 that
a. he had heard from Cornelis that the latter had received the book from Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers (daughter of aunt Aafje), and
b. that according to Hein Kofman, son of Cornelia Kofman-reuvers, Cornelis had stolen the book from his mother.
Here again, I can't think of a reason why an 83 year old man, shortly before his death, would make up a story like this. It sounds true to me.
I tend to conclude that:
Cornelis probably did not get the book from his aunt Aafje, but from her daughter (his cousin) Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers, and it is possibly that he did not receive it in an honest or friendly way.
Cornelia might not have cared so much about it, but her husband Rijkent Kofman may have received it from Hendrik Reuvers (who seems to have known what it was about).
(Remember that Jacob Kofman, son of Cornelia and Rijkent, became a driven 'apostolic' leader. See my post of April 19.)
This letter from Hajo Last is most important.
I now know part of it through you, and part through Jensma's book.
Can you please post it as a whole on the forum or on your website?
I will translate it into English.
Quote
I suppose, that the OLB has been bought by the son of Stadermann later.
Can you please tell us a bit more about this theory?
### Posted 10 May 2011 - 08:43 AM
Alewyn, on 10 May 2011 - 01:52 AM, said:
Abe, I was realy hoping that some participants here would have taken this posting more serious.
All this playing with words is just derailing the discussion every time and do not prove a thing. It is the same as all the wild speculations around "whodunnit" or trying to prove Greek Mythology true.
I found the quoted post by Abe extremely arrogant.
The silence of 'official' linguists is also deafening and even if they would contribute, they might not agree with each other about everything.
I guess you are not an 'official' historian, nor theologian either and yet you try to make sense of it.
We are all (alternative) truth seekers here and as Puzzler has correctly stated, the main reason why the OLB was assumed to be a hoax in the first place was because of the language that was misunderstood as having too many supposedly 'modern elements' in it.
Part of what we have proven (and are still busy proving) is that this is nonsense, which makes it more likely that OLB carries authentic information.
I advise you to just ignore the language posts if they're not your cup of tea, like I ignore most of the geology stuff, because I just don't know enough about it to discuss.
Quote
Instead of exploring this line of thought, we again compare words in different languages with one another, ad nauseum. In the meantime, the silence of the Egyptologists is/are(?) deafening.
Talking about "deafening silence"... you and Abe have been asking me many times for the paper study report.
I sent you both a PDF of the more detailed 2006 article and tried to start a discussion about it (see link below), but did not even get a "we agree" from either of you.
I would think that's a relevant line of thought too.
Otharus, on 24 April 2011 - 05:10 AM, said:
I would like to start discussing this article:
The Oera Linda Boek - A literary forgery and its paper
by A. Kardinaal, E. v.d. Grijn, H. Porck
published in: IPH Congress Book 16 (2006), p. 177-185
Abe and Alewyn have the PDF, and whoever wants it, can have it.
### Posted 10 May 2011 - 09:52 AM Abramelin, on 10 May 2011 - 09:41 AM, said:
And another thing about the language: it is too modern. It is based on something much more recent.
How do you know that? Can you quote a credible specialist?
Quote
And the OLB is supposed to have been copied from generation to generation, so even with some changes, overall the language should still look really ancient.
Please read my earlier reply to that below.
Otharus, on 09 April 2011 - 08:37 AM, said:
One of the most important reasons why OLB is rejected by most Dutch scholars seems to be that the language is relatively easy to understand.
Since the oldest known texts in Dutch, Frisian, Saxon etc. are more difficult to understand, people assume, that anything older should be even more difficult than, or more different from our 'modern' language.
What they don't realize is that while the written history (written language) had been thoroughly destroyed in a few hunderd years of cultural genocide, the spoken language may have stayed almost the same for people who did not migrate and mix too much.
In the late Middle Ages, the only people who could read and write, had learnt this in Latin (not counting the few exceptions like Liko and Hidde, who risked their lives writing in the old language).
At some point they tried to write down the commonly spoken language (that was much older than Latin), but they had no more examples, they had to construct or actually reconstruct the spelling.
So instead of the evolution of language being linear or exponential (from very primitive to very advanced), it was actually more cyclic; at some point very advanced, and then as a result of wars, migrations and mixing of cultures, it became confused and partly forgotten, while later, in times of relative peace, it was reconstructed again.
Because of the similarities in the North-European languages, we can conclude that they must have had the same (or at least a shared) origin, much older than any known written source.
Nowhere ever have I seen one convincing example of "modern Dutch" in OLB that would prove that it cannot be as old as it says it is.
### Posted 12 May 2011 - 01:08 PM
Alewyn, on 12 May 2011 - 06:07 AM, said:
I find your research into the 19th century investigation of the existance of the OLB very interesting. What is the earliest confirmed date that people knew about the existance of the book? Was it in the1940's or 1930's [1840's or 1830's]?
Thanks Alewyn, and no worries, I also feel a bit frustrated sometimes when (i.m.o.) important issues are left undiscussed and whole pages are (i.m.o.) wasted on irrelevant or minor details. Then again, we're all free-willing amateurs.
First of all, I'm sure you ment 1840/1830's (corected in quote above).
Yes, there are several witness reports that indicate that in the 30's and 40's of the 19th century, the manuscript existed already and/or that the Over de Lindens believed that they stemmed from an ancient noble Frisian family.
In addition to my posts from April 11 and 19, I'll give an improvised summary and add some new information here.
(With thanks to Menno Knul who mailed me 5 scanned pages of "Het geheimzinnige handschrift van de Familie Over de Linden" by E. Molenaar, 1949. They can now be found here.)
Here are some facts (not all!) related to the question whether the OLB existed long before Cornelis Over de Linden tried to have it translated by Eelco Verwijs in 1867.
(Note: this was shortly after Cornelis' friend Ernst Stadermann's death, which could mean that the latter had tried to help him translate it before, without succes. But this is just a guess, as the events may not be related at all. For Menno Knul, this is reason to believe that Stadermann was one of the 'hoaxers'.)
1. Schoolteacher Cornelis Wijs stated in 1876 that in 1831 he had heard Jan Over de Linden (1785-1835), the father of Cornelis, boost about descending from "the oldest family in the world".
2. Two other schoolteachers made an official statement with a notary, that in 1848 they had heard Cornelis Over de Linden junior (1833-1868) boost about virtually the same (being from ancient noble Frisian descent), as well as his father (Cornelis senior) knowing this from "a book with strange letters".
3. Naval officer W.M. Visser had made a diary note on 23-12-1854 of having heard from Cornelis Over de Linden that the latter had told him about the book and that it was written "in a strange language and a strange script".
4. Vinkers wrote that Cornelis had picked up the manuscript in 1848 in Enkhuizen together with his son Cornelis (source not mentioned).
5. New information
Translated from Molenaar (1949), a quote from Jacob Munnik, who was married to a pre-marital daughter of Cornelis Over de Linden's first wife (which makes him Cornelis' step-son-in-law.)
"In 1845 (a year before my marriage), C. Over de Linden, bookbinder Stadermann and me went on a little tour together (to Enkhuizen). We visited an old skipper, where Over de Linden's mother was a housekeeper. C.O.L. spoke with his mother and the old man in private and when we had left Enkhuizen, he said: "It's a bloody shame; the old one has an old book that belongs to us and he does not want to hand it over. It proves that our family is old." He also spoke about forested areas, like royal domains with many Linden-trees etcetra. "But it is old-Frisian; that's the bloody problem!", Cornelis had said.
For a few years he has been complaining about it (from 1845-1847), but in the meantime he had started to learn the old-Frisian language."
I agree with author Molenaar that Munnik probably had confused the old skipper with Hendrik Reuvers, the husband of aunt Aafje, whom they will also have visited.
6. More new information
Again from Molenaar (1949), who writes about an article in the Friesche Courant of 30-4-1877, written by M.K. de Jong, schoolmaster in the village Kooten. He states that a trustworthy fellow villager had declared that "about 40 years ago" (ca. 1837) "his uncle Leendert Over de Linden had told him that there were some very old manuscripts kept by the Over de Linden family."
7. Relevant to know is also that Hein Kofman (1853-1933), who was said to have heard that Cornelis Over de Linden had stolen the OLB from the house of his parents, lived all his life in the house of his parents Rijkent Kofman and Cornelia Reuvers (1818-1878), which had also been the house of his grandparents Hendrik Reuvers and Aafje Over de Linden (1798-1849) as well as the house of Andries Over de Linden (1759-1820) and IJfje Schols. This means that since the death of Andries Over de Linden in 1820, the manuscript has stayed in the same house until Cornelis took it to Den Helder in 1848.
Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers would have stated that "without doubt the manuscript had been kept here [in her house] in a corner, covered with dust." She did not remember how long it had stayed there and when it had been moved to Den Helder.
8. Another aunt of Cornelis, Antje Van Doornik-Over de Linden (1795-1882), when asked in 1876, said not to have heard of the manuscript.
~ ~ ~
For now, not having much time (packing my bags), I leave the conclusions to all this to the forum, but not without adding that I totally agree with Alewyn that...:
Quote
Jensma's view that this was another old book (now lost), is so lame, and in fact, pathetic that it should be rejected by anyone with a bit of sense. Yet, because he is a professor people actually believe him. Imagine that. They had an old book which they threw away and then created a totally "new" old book.
Finally, once more about the paper research report:
If the paper would indeed have been from the 19th century and if it would indeed have been artificially colored, this should have been easy to prove with the nowaday techniques.
Therefore, my layman conclusion:
The paper was not artificially colored and does not come from a European or American factory.
Some questions:
A. Does anyone know about paper making techniques in the Byzantium or Asia?
B. Did any of the oldest Over de Linden bookshops have ways of obtaining (or making) unique paper (to make one or more copies)?
### Posted 12 May 2011 - 01:26 PM
Knul, on 12 May 2011 - 07:43 AM, said:
For those who are interested in the word foddik = lamp, there is breaking news on my website: www.rodinbook.nl.
Great Menno, but please change this:
... dat over de hele wereld groepen vrouwen (maagden ?), die zich dochters van Freya noemen, hun lamp brandend houden.
Now THAT's a hoax. (It's not true.)
### Posted 12 May 2011 - 01:34 PM
Knul, on 12 May 2011 - 07:43 AM, said:
For those who are interested in the word foddik = lamp, there is breaking news on my website: www.rodinbook.nl.
Sorry Menno, I was just going to check it (kept forgetting):
Jensma (2006), p.83: possible source for "foddik" is "Proeve van een Friesch en Nederlandsch woordenboek" by M. de Haan Hettema (1832).
### Posted 12 May 2011 - 01:45 PM
Something I wanted to post earlier, just for the record as some sources state the wrong date, the death certificate of Andries Over de Linden, died 25 April 1820, Enkhuizen, Oude Rietdijk.
(scanned document)
### Posted by Alewyn 12 May 2011 - 01:49 PM
cormac mac airt, on 12 May 2011 - 06:23 AM, said:
No, that's NOT what I said either. I've posted about several events that were happening in and around that general point in time. What I have said REPEATEDLY is that there is no evidence that can be pinned to the 2193/2194 BC date SPECIFICALLY like you have claimed several times. There STILL remains no evidence that corroborates that specific date, whether from the OLB or your own personal claims/misinterpretations of fact, which Swede and I both mentioned somewhere back around Page 9 or so, IIRC.
cormac
You are really one gutsy Brave as long as you can remain anonymous, aren't you. Here I specifically refer to your terms "personal claims/misinterpretations of fact".
Now for once, do you or don't you agree that all the events around the 2200 BC event happened at the same time? Please stop beating around the bush and give us a straight answer.
If you do, then we can go to the next FACT. Professor Harvey Weiss, after some 26 years of work, declared that the Akkadian Empire came to fall in 2193 BC. This just happens to be EXACTLY the same date that the Oera Linda Book used and is only 7 years away from the generally used date of 2200 BC. Next, please consult the Sumerian King List, etc. and then tell me, where did I "misrepresent" anything. If you cannot use some logic or deductive reasoning, then just keep your cheap defamatory comments to yourself.
If, on the other hand, you remain adamant that these are all separate events, then I have really nothing more to say to you. You seem to want to portray the image of an academic but you cannot even begin to display some form of deductive reasoning, lateral thinking or logic. What you have learned and, heaven forbid, taught, is just so far removed from the possibilities we are discussing here that it just seems to go right over your head. If everyone had your attitude the earth would still have been flat and at the centre of the Universe.
### Posted 13 May 2011 - 02:26 AM
Knul, on 12 May 2011 - 06:03 PM, said:
Here is the full text of the scans, which I have produced earlier.
Bron: E. Molenaar, Het Geheimzinnige Handschrift van de Familie Over de Linden.
Can you please post or mail the rest too? I would love to study it.
Quote
Note: In my opinion there is no reference to the small Oera Linda Boek at all, but to the Worp of Thabor, which was as voluminous as a Statenbijbel.
The "Worp of Thabor" was in Latin and old-Dutch (hence not in "strange language" or "strange script") and it was not about the Over de Linden family. Therefore the W.T. does not match with the witness reports (1,2,3,5) summarized in post #4830.
Quote
The letters of Cornelis over de Linden to Eelco Verwijs show, that Over de Linden did not understand the text at all and that he got interested in it only, when Eelco Verwijs told him, that the small booklet dealt with his family history.
I suppose he feigned innocence and naivety, to avoid appearing too eager. He will indeed not have understood the text himself, but apparently he had heard things about it, even before he obtained it in 1848 (ancient family history, royal domains with Linden trees, etcetera).
I read (don't remember where at the moment) that he initially believed that the book contained information about a family treasure, which would explain why he was so eager to get it (1845-1848) and why he waited so long asking for help with the translation.
I would like to start discussing this article:
The Oera Linda Boek - A literary forgery and its paper
====>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 26 April 2011 - 02:08 PM
D is for Del-ta
A possible clue to why 'Fryan' (the language of the OLB) is older than old-Greek.
====>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 26 April 2011 - 02:10 PM
W is for O-mega
Wikipedia:
Omega (majuscule: Ω, minuscule: ω) is the 24th and last letter of the Greek alphabet. ...
The word literally means "great O", as opposed to Omicron, which means "little O". ...
In the New Testament book of Revelation, God is declared to be the "alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last".
The number 24 was highly symbolic for the Fryans (with their 6-spokes JOL), being 2 x 12 and 4 x 6 and 8 x 3.
The shape of the capital reminds me of the wheel-posture (chakra-asana), which is the last posture of a traditional sequence of a yoga session.
It looks like a wheel on a flat surface.
And the 'minuscule' looks just like our w (dubble-u), the lines being curved in stead of straight.
The sound of the Fryan W or VV must have been similar to that of the Greek O-mega (long stretched O).
WR.ALDA in Greek would spell Ωρ-άλδά or ωρ-άλδά.
This makes O-mega indeed a 'sacred' letter as the 'majuscule' represents the wheel (JOL), the first symbol of Wr-Alda, while the 'minuscul', represents the first letter of Wr-Alda.
### Posted 27 April 2011 - 02:32 AM
The Puzzler, on 27 April 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:
I won't even go there but Aboriginals have a bag they call it a dili bag or as we say a Dilly-Bag - it's for carrying things in, a drawstring type pouch bag they carry things in - almost like a bucket with a drawstring...weird. Anyways...
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there are language connections.
When I was in Ozzy I noticed more of them (was in Cairns too last year).
Most striking is BOOMERANG <= BOOM-RANK (tree-branch).
### Posted 27 April 2011 - 12:53 PM
Some additional notes on the Over de Linden family
====>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 28 April 2011 - 09:07 AM
The Puzzler, on 28 April 2011 - 04:10 AM, said:
What I see though, is why the Christians probably have a fish symbol for Jesus.
Wikipedia:
Ichthys (more commonly spelled Ichthus, or sometimes Ikhthus, from Koine Greek: ἰχθύς, capitalized ΙΧΘΥΣ or ΙΧΘΥC) is the ancient and classical Greek word for "fish." In English it refers to a symbol consisting of two intersecting arcs, the ends of the right side extending beyond the meeting point so as to resemble the profile of a fish, used by Early Christians as a secret symbol[1] and now known colloquially as the "sign of the fish" or the "Jesus fish."
Iota (i) is the first letter of Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), Greek for "Jesus".
Chi (ch) is the first letter of Christos (Χριστός), Greek for "anointed".
Theta (th) is the first letter of Theou (Θεοῦ), Greek for "God's", the genitive case of Θεóς, Theos, Greek for "God".
Upsilon (u) is the first letter of huios (Υἱός), Greek for "Son".
Sigma (s) is the first letter of sōtēr (Σωτήρ), Greek for "Savior".
But what you say may be yet another (extra or main?) reason to use the fish as a symbol.
(The more ambiguous meanings the better in symbology.)
### Posted 28 April 2011 - 09:19 AM
A preposterous translation by Jensma
====>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 01 May 2011 - 03:36 AM
Abramelin, on 29 April 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:
Bezum, Otharus, McKay, and Alewyn, and all those other people who are able to read Dutch, or are Dutch, please tell me: what is your impression of this guy Halbertsma?
I could also show you his letters to Grimm so you would understand how fanatic this guy was about anything Frisian (language, history, legends, and so on).
Just consider this: he was called "Mister Fryslan".
He went to very great lenghts to put Friesland and Frisian heritage on the world map. He was in contact with German, Danish, and English and other linguists and historians, and did his utter best to promote Friesland.
...
If there was anyone motivated to create a manuscript like the OLB, or be the inspirator of it, then it was Halbertsma.
It is because Halbertsma was a part of the Frisian Elite, and because he knew pretty much everything there was to know at that time about Frisian language and history, that he could have created something that the Frisian elite would have loved.
But the OLB had the opposite effect on them.
It terrified and insulted them.
They hated it.
This is one of the reasons why someone with his skills and motives could not have done it, for he would have done a much better job pleasing the crowds.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The OLB contains elements that even someone like Eelco Verwijs felt embarrassed about, and he can be considered as one of the most open-minded, provocative, hedonistic bohemians of his time. Jensma describes him as completely unethical (I think we would love this guy).
Example: the fragment with the foul Fin "nilst min kul navt sâ skilst min swêrd ha". (Ref.: letter Verwijs to Over de Linden)
### Posted 02 May 2011 - 02:39 AM
Abramelin, on 01 May 2011 - 06:12 PM, said:
... the Rüstringer dialect, Halbertsma's favorite Old Frisian dialect...
You keep repeating this, as if it would be relevant.
1. It's not, because 'Fryan' is more like old-Westfrisian than like Rustringian.
2. I doubt it's true. Your source is Menno Knul, I guess. What is his?
3. Halbertsma is no suspect for the reasons I gave before.
### Posted 03 May 2011 - 06:21 AM
Abramelin, on 02 May 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:
You got it, and it's not absurd.
For the record:
I agree with The Puzzler that it is indeed absurd to suggest that the OLB could have been created by just forgetting everything (or much) of accepted history and then "making up anything you like".
There is nothing in the OLB that proves it cannot be a (copy of) a 13th century copy of a 9th century copy (etcetera).
If so much of it would have been "made up" (in the 19th century), it would be a piece of cake to demask it as a hoax by now. It obviously is not.
To create something like that out of what was known in the 19th century, combined with the fantasies people had in that time:
IMPOSSIBLE.
It does not fit into any tradition: nothing of it's kind was ever made before it, nothing was ever made after it.
### Posted 03 May 2011 - 06:34 AM
Abramelin, on 02 May 2011 - 08:32 AM, said:
-1- Yes, you said that several times. Well then, give us an example.
-2- I got the idea, and just that, from Menno Knul. For the rest, I did my own research as I have tried to show you
-3- I also explained what I meant with 'suspect'... that it could be equally true that he created (part of) the OLB narrative as an exercize in Old-ish Frisian (based on the Old Rüstringer dialect, with added 'old-ish' and invented words), but that someone else 'used' (=stole or borrrowed) his work, and carried on with it to create what we now know as the OLB.
1. I gave several examples earlier but you never commented on any of it. I don't blame you, since language is not one of your interests. Also, my examples, are not solid proof yet, I have to invest more time into that first.
You like to believe that the OLB language is more similar to Rustringian than to any of the other old-Frisian dialects (and you try to brainwash us into believing that too, by repeating it like a parrot).
I asked you again: what is this belief based on?
2. I'll be more clear:
Why do you think Rustringian was Halbertsma's favorite dialect?
3. Give one, just one example of an "invented word".
Something else:
If your theory would be true, why does the Rustringian area play such an insignificant role in the book, while it's all about the area that is now Westfriesland (including Texland)?
### Posted 03 May 2011 - 07:06 PM
Abramelin, on 03 May 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:
The OLB fits like a glove in that Frisian tradition to create an alternative ancient history.
No single work from the traditional Frisian historiography was created anonymously as a hoax, nothing on artificially aged paper, nothing in an unknown language, in an unknown script.
To name just a few major differences.
Nothing of its kind was made before, nor after it.
Quote
Well, have you ever shown a sign of skepsis? Do you even know what it really means?? It's nothing to do with being cynical and a principal disbeliever of anything out of the ordinary as many on this site seem to think, it has to do with doubt.
I doubt Jensma's, Knul's and your hoax-theory, and I have shown why.
I voiced my doubts about the conclusions of the paper study.
From the beginning I have tried to find proof that OLB is a hoax.
The more I know, the less doubt I have that OLB is authentic.
Just putting all the facts together and using logic and reason.
### Posted 03 May 2011 - 07:30 PM
Abramelin, on 03 May 2011 - 07:14 PM, said:
That's where you are wrong: it is thought that the work of Ocko Scharlensis (or part of it) was a hoax created by a XYZ ( I forgot his name, but I will find it ) from the 17th (?) century.
Some people like to believe that yes, but there is not the slightest proof.
I have read the whole thing, and I doubt this theory from the same orthodox-Christian Frisian elite, that tend to call anything lies that escaped Roman Catholic flames.
### Posted 04 May 2011 - 05:30 AM
OK let's try to settle this.
For more clarity, I'll seperate the two main questions.
It started with you mentioning (#4552, 1 May):
"... the Rüstringer dialect, Halbertsma's favorite Old Frisian dialect..."
I reacted (#4557, May 2):
"You keep repeating this, as if it would be relevant.
1. It's not, because 'Fryan' is more like old-Westfrisian than like Rustringian."
You (#4558, May 2):
"-1- Yes, you said that several times. Well then, give us an example."
Me (#4612, May 3:)
"1. I gave several examples earlier but you never commented on any of it. (...)
You like to believe that the OLB language is more similar to Rustringian than to any of the other old-Frisian dialects (...).
I ask you again: what is this belief based on?"
You (#4615, May 3):
"About that Rüstringer dialect: I'd say, Google "Halbertsma" AND "Wangerooge". On that island they spoke a dialect which was very close to the Rüstringer dialect, and Halbertsma published about it. I remember I posted a link to a pdf where his finds and conclusion were being discussed. Don't ask me what post, please."
Me (now):
Are you saying that the OLB language is more similar to Rustringian because "Halbertsma published about it"?
That is twisting the facts to fit your reality in which Halbertsma was the (main) author of the OLB (example number 1).
Your reasoning must be something like this:
"Halbertsma made the OLB, he published about Rustringian, therefore the OLB language must be based on Rustringian."
No one ever established that the OLB language is more similar to Rustringian than to any other vartiety of old-Frisian (and no one ever will, because it's not).
You just like to believe that, because IF it were true, it would support your theory.
### Posted 04 May 2011 - 05:32 AM
Otharus, on 04 May 2011 - 05:30 AM, said:
That is twisting the facts to fit your reality in which Halbertsma was the (main) author of the OLB (example number 1).
Now the second part:
Again, it started with you bringing up your favorite pet-theory (#4552, 1 May):
"... the Rüstringer dialect, Halbertsma's favorite Old Frisian dialect..."
I reacted (#4557, May 2):
"2. I doubt it's true. Your source is Menno Knul, I guess. What is his?"
You (#4558, May 2):
"-2- I got the idea, and just that, from Menno Knul. For the rest, I did my own research as I have tried to show you"
Me (#4612, May 3:)
"2. I'll be more clear:
Why do you think Rustringian was Halbertsma's favorite dialect?"
You (#4615, May 3):
"Why was it Halbertsma's favorite dialect? Because it was the most ancient known Frisian dialect around. (...) From what I read - and no, not by Menno Knul - he wanted Friesland back on the worldmap and did everything he could (with his brother) to succeed in that. So - also as the linguist he was - he would no doubt love that ancient dialect."
Me (now):
Aha, so you just assume it was his favorite dialect. It is not an established fact at all.
Now have a look again at your initial quote:
"... the Rüstringer dialect, Halbertsma's favorite Old Frisian dialect..."
Example number two of how you twist facts to fit into your reality.
### Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:54 AM
Abramelin, on 04 May 2011 - 07:06 AM, said:
I still think that the Rüstringen dialect comes closest to the OLB language.
HIR IS ESKRIUIN
====>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 07 May 2011 - 06:28 PM
"SEX" in the OLB
Earlier I did a language exercise with the symbolic numbers TWELVE and THREE. Now it's time for the one 'in-between', SIX.
====>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 08 May 2011 - 02:27 AM
Abramelin, on 07 May 2011 - 07:19 PM, said:
Now you tell me Otharus: when will people visiting this thread - assuming they are still on the fence about it - be convinced that the OLB is not a hoax/forgery/fantasy/whatever??
Must be me, but I think that as soon as we find - here I go again - the remnants of a citadel as described in the OLB, or another example, anywhere, of the OLB script (manuscripts, inscriptions), and dated to many centuries before present, that then they will be a lot more convinced of the OLB being a true ancient account of European history.
Of course evidence of the physical kind would be the most easy way.
It's just NOT the ONLY possible way, that's what I say.
If I remember correctly from the history of philosophy, it was in the time of Descartes that the sciences split into physical/ material and metaphysical, the latter becoming the domain mostly of the church.
(Our main sciences still mostly have a materialistic approach. One can see that most easily in medical science where even psychosomatic and psychiatric 'dis-eases' are approached on a physical level, so drugs can be prescribed and telling the patient that the cause is genetic or otherwise material, rather than social or emotional, which is, again, more difficult to understand and deal with.)
Now we're touching yet another angle, namely philosophy, and I'm not specialized in that either. Just wanted to point out that the solution to a problem does not always have to be in the 'material world'. Language, culture, consciousness, things that are hidden in our (collective) consciousness can be valid too, they just are more complex and need more abstract thinking.
I don't know if I express myself clearly, I just woke up, it's almost 7 am.
Anyway, maybe someone who is more into philosophy can shine some light on this.
Quote
Another thing, and I do know you don't have easy/much access to the internet: can you tell a bit more about that Dunkirk Transgression of around 300 BC I talked about a few pages back?? The pdf I posted for Alewyn is all the serious and scientific info I could find about it.
It's surely an interesting one, but I will probably not be very active here in the next few weeks, as I'm preparing to go travel again, to arrive back home by the end of this month.
### Posted 08 May 2011 - 08:42 AM
Welcome Menno,
and thank you for your post, as well as all the work you did, making sources available (I recently read the letters you added to your site, which was very helpful).
I have thought of writing you to discuss your theory, but this is much better. I hope Goffe Jensma will feel challenged some day to join too.
One thing to start with, something interesting I just found out.
Knul, on 08 May 2011 - 06:09 AM, said:
I have not yet retrieved the famous word 'foddik', which clearly belongs to it.
Greek:
φωτιά - fire, light
### Posted 08 May 2011 - 09:34 AM
Knul, on 08 May 2011 - 06:09 AM, said:
The letters make clear, that nor Cornelis over de Linden nor Verwijs could have written the Oera Linda Boek.
I agree to this.
Quote
Both manuscripts were in the possession of the bookstore of the Over de Lindens in Enkhuizen. Probably there have been problems about an inheritance between the families, so that Cornelis over the Linden came to collect his share. A grandson calls it 'stolen'.
On your website I read that this grandson was Hein Kofman. Can you tell us more about it?
I have never read anywhere that the two manuscripts have been in the possession of any Over de Linden bookstore. Can you give your source for this too?
### Posted 09 May 2011 - 09:33 AM
Thank you for the answers, Menno.
Here's my comments to them.
Knul, on 09 May 2011 - 04:40 AM, said:
1. The information, that the manuscript of the Oera Linda Boek and Worp van Thabor have been stolen by Cornelis over de Linden comes from an article in the Enkhuizer Courant of January, 9th 1934. In a letter to the editor Hajo Last (died 1934 in Bussum, age 83) writes that he was a colleague of Hein Kofman (grandson of Aafje over de Linden, aunt of Cornelis over de Linden. He writes that 'Nephew Over de Linden has stolen them from my mother'. Source: Het Geheimzinnige Handschrift van de Familie Over de Linden, pag. 11. This might be gossip.
It might be gossip, but it might also be true.
If it's true, it's of extreme relevance.
Remarkable that Jensma did not mention this in his book.
I hope you will add more from this source to your website.
Quote
2. Joast Halbertsma specialized in the origin of the Frisian language and law. The main source for both of them was the Riustringian dialect, he was very familiar with. See literature. A particular aspect of the Riustringian dialect was the availability yet of negative verbs (nildon - they did not want), which are found frequently in the Oera Linda Boek. Negative verbs disappeared in the younger stages of Old Frisian.
"Nildon", which can either be called a negative verb or just a contraction of "ne wildon", is not exclusively Rustringian.
Old Westfrisian Laws (#55 or LV):
IEF HI NELLE,
Als hij niet wil,
If he (the magistrate) will not (do so),
SO NE ACH HIM NIMMA IOWA LADA NER BOTA,
zo acht hem niemand laden noch boeten te geven,
no man need tender him oaths or compensation,
NER NIMMA SINE BAN THELDA.
noch niemand zijne ban dulden.
nor obey his orders.
Quote
3. Foddik. (...) The word must come from the Jordaan dialect of Amsterdam, which has been investigated by Joast Halbertsma and Johan Winkler. (...)
Why must "foddik" come from the Jordaan dialect of Amsterdam?
Because that dialect was studied by Halbertsma?
In that case, there is a similar mistake going on as with Rustringian.
I suspect that your reasoning is like this:
1. Halbertsma wrote the OLB.
2. He studied Rustringian and the Jordaan dialect.
3. The unknown word "foddik" must come from the Jordaan dialect.
It's interesting to know if "foddik" was part of the Jordaan dialect, but whether or not this is true, it does not add to the proof that Halbertsma did it.
In theory it's possible that the OLB was inspired by various languages and dialects, but it's equally possible (and in my opinion more likely) that those languages and dialects have similarities with the OLB language because the latter is indeed ancient, and they stem from it.
Quote
4. About the very old bookstore of the family Over de Linden in Enkhuizen, please read the information below (in Dutch). Aunt Aafje Over de Linden, who gave the manuscripts to Cornelis over de Linden, was married to Pieter Bais, who joined the family as a bookseller in Enkhuizen. (...)
First, a correction:
You have confused two people with the same name:
Cornelis' aunt, Aafje Over de Linden (1798-1849) was married 1. to Hendrik Reuvers (1796-1845), 2. to Koop Meijlof (ca.1804-ca.1875)
The other Aafje (a.k.a. Antje) Over de Linden (1854-1924) was married to book printer and publisher Pieter Bais (1850-1926). This Aafje's father was a cousin to the second degree of Cornelis Over de Linden (1811-1874).
For a more complete and more accurate Over de Linden genealogy, see here.
Second, and most importantly, you seem to have assumed that the manuscript was in the possession of any Over de Linden bookshop, as it does not say so in your quotes.
Conclusion: This is not an established fact.
### Posted 10 May 2011 - 06:46 AM
Knul, on 09 May 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:
In 1845 Cornelis over de Linden, Staderman and Munnik travelled to Enkhuizen to visit aunt Aafje Over de Linden (Vijzelstraat), obviously to discuss the inheritance, but it took till 1848, that aunt Aafje handed the manuscripts over to Cornelis Over de Linden. Reuvers, who opposed to the transaction, died in 1845.
About the source of the first part of your quote, here's a part of my earlier post:
Otharus, on 19 April 2011 - 08:02 AM, said:
Earlier we have read about Cornelis Over de Linden's version of the story of how he got the OLB manuscript from his aunt Aafje in Enkhuizen.
Let's first have a look at three other versions by other people.
(Translated from DGG p.243)
version 1
Over de Linden's stepson-in-law Jacob Munnik told in 1876 that in 1845 he went with Cornelis and the book-binder Ernst Stadermann from Den Helder, to Over de Linden's mother in Enkhuizen, where he [Cornelis], apparently without succes, tried to convince her to give him an old family-book. [Source: Beckering Vinkers, "Wie heeft het Oera Linda-Boek geschreven?", p.31]
version 2
Related to this, Beckering Vinkers states - without mentioning a source - that Over de Linden in 1848 finally went to get this book in Enkhuizen, together with his son Cornelis II [aged 15 by then]. [Source: Beckering V., "Wie heeft ...?", p.15]
version 3
A third witness report is from a certain Hajo Last in Enkhuizen, whose mother lived next to the mother of Over the Linden. Last said that Over de Linden regularly visited his mother and...: "Once when he was visiting in Enkhuizen, he came to his cousin, and that was a widow Kofman [if this was in the 1840-s her husband was still alive], in the Rietdijk, now called the Vijzelstraat [...]. She said to him: 'Kees, I have some old manuscripts here, from your grandfather, and he always said: "Those are meant to be passed on to my heir ['stamhouder']".' That's how his cousin gave them to him; I still remember him saying it, sitting at our table."
[Footnote Jensma:] This was from a sent-in letter in the 'Enkhuizer Courant' of 9-1-1934. With this 'widow Kofman' Cornelia or Kee Reuvers is meant (born 1818), the daughter of 'aunt Aafje' and Hendrik Reuvers. Apparently she lived in the old Over de Linden family-house at the Rietdijk after her husband Rijkent Kofman had died; in 1840 they lived at the Nieuwe Zeedijk 391.
Version three is complex and needs to be analysed:
It is told by Hajo Last (1) in 1934, who has heard Cornelis Over de Linden (2) tell his story (see underlining; before 1874), about what his cousin the 'widow' Kee Kofman-Reuvers (3) said to him (when she 'handed over' the OLB) about what his grandfather Andries Over de Linden (4) used to say (before 1820).
Over de Linden had told his story to Hajo Last, visiting Last's mother, who was the neighbor of OL's mother Antje Goedmaat, who died in 1874.
If versions 1 and 2 are correct, Cornelis tried to retrieve the OLB in 1845, in which he succeeded in 1848. His own 'official' versions (from 1867 on) also say that he 'received' the OLB in 1848.
It's plausible that Cornelis has waited with trying to retrieve the book till his uncle Hendrik Reuvers had died in 1845.
The testimony of Jacob Munnik (stepson-in-law of Cornelis) is in conflict with the story of Cornelis, who claimed that his aunt gave it to him by surprise (him not knowing about it).
I cannot think of a reason why Munnik would have made this up.
Jensma suggests that this concerns another old family book (not the OLB).
The second part of your quote (that aunt Aafje gave Cornelis the manuscripts) is according to the story of Cornelis, but I suspect he has been lying about this, because:
1. his story does not agree with Jacob Munnik's story
2. it also does not agree with the story of Hajo Last, who wrote in the Enkhuizer Courant of January 9, 1934 that
a. he had heard from Cornelis that the latter had received the book from Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers (daughter of aunt Aafje), and
b. that according to Hein Kofman, son of Cornelia Kofman-reuvers, Cornelis had stolen the book from his mother.
Here again, I can't think of a reason why an 83 year old man, shortly before his death, would make up a story like this. It sounds true to me.
I tend to conclude that:
Cornelis probably did not get the book from his aunt Aafje, but from her daughter (his cousin) Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers, and it is possibly that he did not receive it in an honest or friendly way.
Cornelia might not have cared so much about it, but her husband Rijkent Kofman may have received it from Hendrik Reuvers (who seems to have known what it was about).
(Remember that Jacob Kofman, son of Cornelia and Rijkent, became a driven 'apostolic' leader. See my post of April 19.)
This letter from Hajo Last is most important.
I now know part of it through you, and part through Jensma's book.
Can you please post it as a whole on the forum or on your website?
I will translate it into English.
Quote
I suppose, that the OLB has been bought by the son of Stadermann later.
Can you please tell us a bit more about this theory?
### Posted 10 May 2011 - 08:43 AM
Alewyn, on 10 May 2011 - 01:52 AM, said:
Abe, I was realy hoping that some participants here would have taken this posting more serious.
All this playing with words is just derailing the discussion every time and do not prove a thing. It is the same as all the wild speculations around "whodunnit" or trying to prove Greek Mythology true.
I found the quoted post by Abe extremely arrogant.
The silence of 'official' linguists is also deafening and even if they would contribute, they might not agree with each other about everything.
I guess you are not an 'official' historian, nor theologian either and yet you try to make sense of it.
We are all (alternative) truth seekers here and as Puzzler has correctly stated, the main reason why the OLB was assumed to be a hoax in the first place was because of the language that was misunderstood as having too many supposedly 'modern elements' in it.
Part of what we have proven (and are still busy proving) is that this is nonsense, which makes it more likely that OLB carries authentic information.
I advise you to just ignore the language posts if they're not your cup of tea, like I ignore most of the geology stuff, because I just don't know enough about it to discuss.
Quote
Instead of exploring this line of thought, we again compare words in different languages with one another, ad nauseum. In the meantime, the silence of the Egyptologists is/are(?) deafening.
Talking about "deafening silence"... you and Abe have been asking me many times for the paper study report.
I sent you both a PDF of the more detailed 2006 article and tried to start a discussion about it (see link below), but did not even get a "we agree" from either of you.
I would think that's a relevant line of thought too.
Otharus, on 24 April 2011 - 05:10 AM, said:
I would like to start discussing this article:
The Oera Linda Boek - A literary forgery and its paper
by A. Kardinaal, E. v.d. Grijn, H. Porck
published in: IPH Congress Book 16 (2006), p. 177-185
Abe and Alewyn have the PDF, and whoever wants it, can have it.
### Posted 10 May 2011 - 09:52 AM Abramelin, on 10 May 2011 - 09:41 AM, said:
And another thing about the language: it is too modern. It is based on something much more recent.
How do you know that? Can you quote a credible specialist?
Quote
And the OLB is supposed to have been copied from generation to generation, so even with some changes, overall the language should still look really ancient.
Please read my earlier reply to that below.
Otharus, on 09 April 2011 - 08:37 AM, said:
One of the most important reasons why OLB is rejected by most Dutch scholars seems to be that the language is relatively easy to understand.
Since the oldest known texts in Dutch, Frisian, Saxon etc. are more difficult to understand, people assume, that anything older should be even more difficult than, or more different from our 'modern' language.
What they don't realize is that while the written history (written language) had been thoroughly destroyed in a few hunderd years of cultural genocide, the spoken language may have stayed almost the same for people who did not migrate and mix too much.
In the late Middle Ages, the only people who could read and write, had learnt this in Latin (not counting the few exceptions like Liko and Hidde, who risked their lives writing in the old language).
At some point they tried to write down the commonly spoken language (that was much older than Latin), but they had no more examples, they had to construct or actually reconstruct the spelling.
So instead of the evolution of language being linear or exponential (from very primitive to very advanced), it was actually more cyclic; at some point very advanced, and then as a result of wars, migrations and mixing of cultures, it became confused and partly forgotten, while later, in times of relative peace, it was reconstructed again.
Because of the similarities in the North-European languages, we can conclude that they must have had the same (or at least a shared) origin, much older than any known written source.
Nowhere ever have I seen one convincing example of "modern Dutch" in OLB that would prove that it cannot be as old as it says it is.
### Posted 12 May 2011 - 01:08 PM
Alewyn, on 12 May 2011 - 06:07 AM, said:
I find your research into the 19th century investigation of the existance of the OLB very interesting. What is the earliest confirmed date that people knew about the existance of the book? Was it in the
Thanks Alewyn, and no worries, I also feel a bit frustrated sometimes when (i.m.o.) important issues are left undiscussed and whole pages are (i.m.o.) wasted on irrelevant or minor details. Then again, we're all free-willing amateurs.
First of all, I'm sure you ment 1840/1830's (corected in quote above).
Yes, there are several witness reports that indicate that in the 30's and 40's of the 19th century, the manuscript existed already and/or that the Over de Lindens believed that they stemmed from an ancient noble Frisian family.
In addition to my posts from April 11 and 19, I'll give an improvised summary and add some new information here.
(With thanks to Menno Knul who mailed me 5 scanned pages of "Het geheimzinnige handschrift van de Familie Over de Linden" by E. Molenaar, 1949. They can now be found here.)
Here are some facts (not all!) related to the question whether the OLB existed long before Cornelis Over de Linden tried to have it translated by Eelco Verwijs in 1867.
(Note: this was shortly after Cornelis' friend Ernst Stadermann's death, which could mean that the latter had tried to help him translate it before, without succes. But this is just a guess, as the events may not be related at all. For Menno Knul, this is reason to believe that Stadermann was one of the 'hoaxers'.)
1. Schoolteacher Cornelis Wijs stated in 1876 that in 1831 he had heard Jan Over de Linden (1785-1835), the father of Cornelis, boost about descending from "the oldest family in the world".
2. Two other schoolteachers made an official statement with a notary, that in 1848 they had heard Cornelis Over de Linden junior (1833-1868) boost about virtually the same (being from ancient noble Frisian descent), as well as his father (Cornelis senior) knowing this from "a book with strange letters".
3. Naval officer W.M. Visser had made a diary note on 23-12-1854 of having heard from Cornelis Over de Linden that the latter had told him about the book and that it was written "in a strange language and a strange script".
4. Vinkers wrote that Cornelis had picked up the manuscript in 1848 in Enkhuizen together with his son Cornelis (source not mentioned).
5. New information
Translated from Molenaar (1949), a quote from Jacob Munnik, who was married to a pre-marital daughter of Cornelis Over de Linden's first wife (which makes him Cornelis' step-son-in-law.)
"In 1845 (a year before my marriage), C. Over de Linden, bookbinder Stadermann and me went on a little tour together (to Enkhuizen). We visited an old skipper, where Over de Linden's mother was a housekeeper. C.O.L. spoke with his mother and the old man in private and when we had left Enkhuizen, he said: "It's a bloody shame; the old one has an old book that belongs to us and he does not want to hand it over. It proves that our family is old." He also spoke about forested areas, like royal domains with many Linden-trees etcetra. "But it is old-Frisian; that's the bloody problem!", Cornelis had said.
For a few years he has been complaining about it (from 1845-1847), but in the meantime he had started to learn the old-Frisian language."
I agree with author Molenaar that Munnik probably had confused the old skipper with Hendrik Reuvers, the husband of aunt Aafje, whom they will also have visited.
6. More new information
Again from Molenaar (1949), who writes about an article in the Friesche Courant of 30-4-1877, written by M.K. de Jong, schoolmaster in the village Kooten. He states that a trustworthy fellow villager had declared that "about 40 years ago" (ca. 1837) "his uncle Leendert Over de Linden had told him that there were some very old manuscripts kept by the Over de Linden family."
7. Relevant to know is also that Hein Kofman (1853-1933), who was said to have heard that Cornelis Over de Linden had stolen the OLB from the house of his parents, lived all his life in the house of his parents Rijkent Kofman and Cornelia Reuvers (1818-1878), which had also been the house of his grandparents Hendrik Reuvers and Aafje Over de Linden (1798-1849) as well as the house of Andries Over de Linden (1759-1820) and IJfje Schols. This means that since the death of Andries Over de Linden in 1820, the manuscript has stayed in the same house until Cornelis took it to Den Helder in 1848.
Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers would have stated that "without doubt the manuscript had been kept here [in her house] in a corner, covered with dust." She did not remember how long it had stayed there and when it had been moved to Den Helder.
8. Another aunt of Cornelis, Antje Van Doornik-Over de Linden (1795-1882), when asked in 1876, said not to have heard of the manuscript.
~ ~ ~
For now, not having much time (packing my bags), I leave the conclusions to all this to the forum, but not without adding that I totally agree with Alewyn that...:
Quote
Jensma's view that this was another old book (now lost), is so lame, and in fact, pathetic that it should be rejected by anyone with a bit of sense. Yet, because he is a professor people actually believe him. Imagine that. They had an old book which they threw away and then created a totally "new" old book.
Finally, once more about the paper research report:
If the paper would indeed have been from the 19th century and if it would indeed have been artificially colored, this should have been easy to prove with the nowaday techniques.
Therefore, my layman conclusion:
The paper was not artificially colored and does not come from a European or American factory.
Some questions:
A. Does anyone know about paper making techniques in the Byzantium or Asia?
B. Did any of the oldest Over de Linden bookshops have ways of obtaining (or making) unique paper (to make one or more copies)?
### Posted 12 May 2011 - 01:26 PM
Knul, on 12 May 2011 - 07:43 AM, said:
For those who are interested in the word foddik = lamp, there is breaking news on my website: www.rodinbook.nl.
Great Menno, but please change this:
... dat over de hele wereld groepen vrouwen (maagden ?), die zich dochters van Freya noemen, hun lamp brandend houden.
Now THAT's a hoax. (It's not true.)
### Posted 12 May 2011 - 01:34 PM
Knul, on 12 May 2011 - 07:43 AM, said:
For those who are interested in the word foddik = lamp, there is breaking news on my website: www.rodinbook.nl.
Sorry Menno, I was just going to check it (kept forgetting):
Jensma (2006), p.83: possible source for "foddik" is "Proeve van een Friesch en Nederlandsch woordenboek" by M. de Haan Hettema (1832).
### Posted 12 May 2011 - 01:45 PM
Something I wanted to post earlier, just for the record as some sources state the wrong date, the death certificate of Andries Over de Linden, died 25 April 1820, Enkhuizen, Oude Rietdijk.
(scanned document)
### Posted by Alewyn 12 May 2011 - 01:49 PM
cormac mac airt, on 12 May 2011 - 06:23 AM, said:
No, that's NOT what I said either. I've posted about several events that were happening in and around that general point in time. What I have said REPEATEDLY is that there is no evidence that can be pinned to the 2193/2194 BC date SPECIFICALLY like you have claimed several times. There STILL remains no evidence that corroborates that specific date, whether from the OLB or your own personal claims/misinterpretations of fact, which Swede and I both mentioned somewhere back around Page 9 or so, IIRC.
cormac
You are really one gutsy Brave as long as you can remain anonymous, aren't you. Here I specifically refer to your terms "personal claims/misinterpretations of fact".
Now for once, do you or don't you agree that all the events around the 2200 BC event happened at the same time? Please stop beating around the bush and give us a straight answer.
If you do, then we can go to the next FACT. Professor Harvey Weiss, after some 26 years of work, declared that the Akkadian Empire came to fall in 2193 BC. This just happens to be EXACTLY the same date that the Oera Linda Book used and is only 7 years away from the generally used date of 2200 BC. Next, please consult the Sumerian King List, etc. and then tell me, where did I "misrepresent" anything. If you cannot use some logic or deductive reasoning, then just keep your cheap defamatory comments to yourself.
If, on the other hand, you remain adamant that these are all separate events, then I have really nothing more to say to you. You seem to want to portray the image of an academic but you cannot even begin to display some form of deductive reasoning, lateral thinking or logic. What you have learned and, heaven forbid, taught, is just so far removed from the possibilities we are discussing here that it just seems to go right over your head. If everyone had your attitude the earth would still have been flat and at the centre of the Universe.
### Posted 13 May 2011 - 02:26 AM
Knul, on 12 May 2011 - 06:03 PM, said:
Here is the full text of the scans, which I have produced earlier.
Bron: E. Molenaar, Het Geheimzinnige Handschrift van de Familie Over de Linden.
Can you please post or mail the rest too? I would love to study it.
Quote
Note: In my opinion there is no reference to the small Oera Linda Boek at all, but to the Worp of Thabor, which was as voluminous as a Statenbijbel.
The "Worp of Thabor" was in Latin and old-Dutch (hence not in "strange language" or "strange script") and it was not about the Over de Linden family. Therefore the W.T. does not match with the witness reports (1,2,3,5) summarized in post #4830.
Quote
The letters of Cornelis over de Linden to Eelco Verwijs show, that Over de Linden did not understand the text at all and that he got interested in it only, when Eelco Verwijs told him, that the small booklet dealt with his family history.
I suppose he feigned innocence and naivety, to avoid appearing too eager. He will indeed not have understood the text himself, but apparently he had heard things about it, even before he obtained it in 1848 (ancient family history, royal domains with Linden trees, etcetera).
I read (don't remember where at the moment) that he initially believed that the book contained information about a family treasure, which would explain why he was so eager to get it (1845-1848) and why he waited so long asking for help with the translation.
No comments:
Post a Comment