29 June 2011

Forum # 8 (may 24 - jun. 22, 2011)

Posted 24 May 2011 - 08:23 PM
Otharus, on 10 May 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:
... 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 [Hein Kofman's] 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.
... This letter from Hajo Last is most important.

Today in the Westfrisian archives (Hoorn, North-Holland), I copied this letter and found more interesting information.

When the mother of Cornelis Over de Linden, Anna Goemaat (sic!) died 26-11-1874 in Enkhuizen, Hajo Last (then 24 years old) and Klaas Speleveld Last (57 y.o., probably his father), registered her death at the town hall.
(The names of her parents were Cornelis Pietersz. Goemaat and Elina Roemers.)

This makes the letter and witness report of Hajo Last more important, as it proves that he must indeed have been acquainted to the Over de Linden family.

### Posted 24 May 2011 - 09:11 PM
Otharus, on 26 April 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:
D is for Del-ta

For the record:
According to my (Westfrisian) mother and the Westfrisian dictionary (by Jan Pannekeet, 1984), the word for a low part of land in the Westfrisian (North-Holland) dialect is still "del".

### Posted 25 May 2011 - 06:37 AM
Abramelin, on 24 May 2011 - 08:35 PM, said:
I just read the respons to my question to Olivier van Renswoude

He appears to not have studied the OLB himself, and therefore his conclusion at the end is worthless, as he is just parrotting Jensma.

Here's his imo relevant quotes, with my improvised translation:

Mijn kennis van het Oudfries is niet dusdanig dat ik er als een deskundige over kan spreken. Niettemin, het verbaast me niets dat het Oera Linda-boek kenmerken vertoont van Rüstringer dialect (...) De oudste (volledige) Oudfriese manuscripten die zijn overgeleverd zijn immers in dat dialect (...)
Opvallend aan het dialect, vergeleken met de andere Oudfriese dialecten, is de hogere frequentie van volle klinkers in onbeklemtoonde lettergrepen. Vergelijk Rüstrings godi ‘aan/bij god’ met Oudwestfries gode.

I don't have enough knowledge of Oldfrisian to speak about it with authority. But that the OLB shows similarities with the Rustringian dialect does not surprise me (...) The oldest (complete) Oldfrisian manuscripts that survived are in that dialect (...)
A striking quality of the dialect, when compared to the other Oldfrisian dialects, is the high frequency of full vowels in unstressed syllables. Compare Rustringian godi 'to/with god' with Oldwestfrisian gode.

I hope Knul and you will note that while "GODE" is used in the OLB, "GODI" is not.

Also, these oldest surviving manuscripts are from during or after the Christenings (late Middle Ages), when most of the cultural genocide had already taken place. In the time of the Roman occupation, the (West) Frisians were known seafaring traders and they even saved a Roman fleet. It's highly unlikely that they were illiterate. They must have had a written tradition of which nothing known (besides OLB?) is left. Untill other sources are found (private or secret archives?), we can only try to reconstruct their language using the descending and related languages.

If the OLB was created as a reconstruction of the ancient language, it is a brilliant one (imo).

### Posted 25 May 2011 - 03:57 PM
Abramelin, on 25 May 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:
Both GODE and GODI are used in the OLB. GODE = good, GODI = god, GODIS = gods, AFGODIE - idolatry.

GODIS (= god-his) and AFGODIE (= afgoderie) are both used yes, but I cannot find your (van Renswoudes) GODI...

### Posted 25 May 2011 - 04:02 PM
Abramelin, on 25 May 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:
Heh, you should have been glad Van Renswoude used that word, "GODI" as an example: in the Rüstringer Laws it is never used, but it IS used in the Fivelgo Laws (as GODIS):

GODI is not the same as GODIS.
Could van Renswoude have been mistaken?

### Posted 26 May 2011 - 08:04 AM
Abramelin, on 25 May 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:
Van Renswoude ...
I think he compared the two languages which must be a lot easier for a linguist then for a layman.

This reminds me of another so-called 'linguist' (Jailsmurf), who accused me (being a 'layman') of making 'linguistic blunders', but when I asked him to give just one example he never answered (see quote below).

Therefore, I repeat: I don't think much of linguists.
And Beckering Vinkers' work qualifies as a bad joke.
Having an academic title is by no means a guarantee for being right.
BTW you're not even sure if van Renswoude is a linguist, are you? It doesn't say so on his website.

Otharus, on 22 December 2010 - 07:05 AM, said:
I don't think much of linguist scholars as they have never seriously taken part in the Oera Linda debate (as far as I know). (Indeed I don't count Beckering (1876), as his publication was highly emotional).
They should by now be able to once and for all make it understood why the language of OLB cannot be authentic, if that is so obvious.

On this "alternative history" forum, alternative etymology should be just as valid a tool to try and explain an ancient mystery. Not hindered by existing thinking patterns (I studied something completely different at University), I may with a fresh look (occasionally) see truth that official historians or linguists don't want to see because it is too much in conflict with their (professors') paradigm.

No doubt you are more knowledgeable of English than me, but what do you know of other Northern European languages?
My most serious attempts are based on comparisons with Swedish, German and Dutch.

My 'etymology' of "smurf" was an obvious (I hope) joke.
If the others made you slap your knees too, that says more about your sense of humor, than that it is proof that I am wrong. Please don't be vague and give examples of my supposed blunders.

### Posted 26 May 2011 - 11:29 PM
Abramelin, on 26 May 2011 - 08:17 PM, said:
Do you seriously think that a language won't change much after 4 millennias??

'Much' is a relative term; how much is much?
Some things stayed pretty much the same, other things changed heaps.
How much different is modern Greek from the oldest known old-Greek?
Icelandic children can read 1000 year old texts in their language...
BTW, the oldest texts from OLB are (if it's true) copies from ca. 600 BC, that's a bit more than 2.5 millennia
If you would ask me if I seriously think that it is possible that 'Fryan' is the real 'proto-Frisian', my answer is YES.

### Posted 27 May 2011 - 06:37 AM
Abramelin, on 27 May 2011 - 01:39 AM, said:
Icelandic is no comparison, we talk about a language that dates from 4200 BP.
Well, that is what we are led to believe, anyway.

Led to believe by 'Fryas' of the six centuries BC, maybe.

I'm sure they themselves wanted to believe too, that their language was the oldest and most origininal.

And it is possible that they were right about that, but we can only guess, since the oldest texts in the book are (if it's true) copies from ca. 600 BC, that is 2600 BP.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The example of Icelandic (there's more of them) is relevant, because if a language can be so stable in 1000 years (because people stayed in the same area, did not mix much and had a written tradition), it can also be stable in 2000 years or more. But if you find this comparison difficult, then please answer my question about old-Greek, if you can.

### Posted 27 May 2011 - 05:26 PM
Abramelin, on 27 May 2011 - 12:18 PM, said:
the Fryans/Frisians did NOT live isolated for millennia, so it's kind of hard to believe the language stayed more or less the same from 600 BC to 1250 AD

They did not need to live isolated for their language to remain (more or less) unchanged, as they stayed in the same area, did not mix much with other cultures, and had a written tradition.

If the language was still 'alive' in the whole first millennium AD, we don't know. There will have been different dialects. The copyists Liko and Hidde (9th and 13th century) may have known the specific old version of their language because of the manuscript, possibly in combination with oral tradition.

The Greeks also did not live isolated, and yet their language did not change all that much in 2.5 millennia.

And I do remember that I once posted a sentence, a translation from a line written in runes at around 700 AD. It was supposed to be really old Frisian and looked like nothing we read in the OLB.

That may have been from a completely different tradition, or in a secret language (usual in times of war). That it is old-Frisian may even have been a misinterpretation.

Maybe it's best you give us an example; it's you who studied Greek.
So, let's say, a translation of a sentence in modern English into modern and old Greek.

Sorry, since I have no prioritime for that, I'll leave that to someone else.

But it's pretty obvious (imo) that new-Greek is more similar to old-Greek, than Dutch is similar to the OLB-language.

### Posted 27 May 2011 - 06:00 PM
cormac mac airt, on 27 May 2011 - 05:12 PM, said:
It's my understanding that the Indo-European language/languages originated in Europe at some point prior to 3000 BC, generally speaking. Then were followed by Proto-Germanic/Germanic, then Western Germanic and then Anglo-Frisian/Frisian.

"Proto-Germanic (often abbreviated PGmc.), or Common Germanic, as it is sometimes known, is the unattested, reconstructed proto-language of all the Germanic languages, such as modern English, Frisian, Dutch, Afrikaans, German, Luxembourgish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Faroese, and Swedish.
The Proto-Germanic language is not directly attested by any surviving texts but has been reconstructed using the comparative method."

On what basis can anyone claim that events described in the OLB concerning the earliest timeframe, c.2193/2194 BC, were accurately passed down orally through several languages/sub-languages until written within the OLB without any additions, deletions, corrections or other embellishments having crept into it?

If 'Fryan' would indeed be the real so-called 'proto-Germanic' (which imo is possible) the oldest stories did not have to go "trough several languages/sub-languages".
But obviously (like I have always said), it would still be possible that within 16 centuries (2200BC-600BC), elements were added and/or changed for propagandandistic, poetic or dramatic purposes.

### Posted 27 May 2011 - 06:18 PM
Abramelin, on 27 May 2011 - 05:42 PM, said:
But from the OLB I get that they did mix a lot with other peoples (Africans/Lydians, Saxons, Magyar).

Not the ones who stayed near Texland (in "Old Fryasland") , to them all this bastardising was a horror (they did 'mix' with the Saxons, who were of the same blood).

You say that that ancient Frisian line (written in runes) may have been a misinterpretation, but as far as I remember, it was found in a Frisian terp.

Yeah and they found a Buddha statue in a Viking mound, remember? That did not make him a Viking god.

You say new Greek is more similar to old Greek than Dutch is to the OLB language. Then how is it possible that I can read it, using Dutch and medieval Dutch?

I don't understand your logic. For average modern Greeks it may be easier to read old-Greek, than it is for average Dutch to read the OLB in the original script and language, without first having read a translation.

Come on, I read that you studied Greek in highschool. I have even trouble reading it, much less understanding it.

I studied old-Greek, not modern Greek, but I have visited several Greek islands, so I did get an impression of it.

Anyway, I'm too busy with other things at the moment, like the Over de Linden genealogy.

### Today I found something fascinating.

Cornelis Bok (1777-1836) was a Westfrisian painter and writer, who was born in Enkhuizen but later lived in Schagen (both in WF).

One of his books (published in Amsterdam, 1828) is "De WITTE PAAL, of JENNE. Eene op waarheid gegronde Noordhollandsche geschiedenis." (The WHITE POLE, or JENNE. A North-hollandic history based on true facts.)

In the introduction to this novel he wrote "that he had bought an old manuscript in a shop for used goods, which was written in rune-like letters. Not too complicated, as he could translate it into normal script with the help of an old school booklet. What appeared was the tale of Jenne, the daughter of Sicco de Great, a nobleman from the old and famous Magnus family.

Quote translated from:
"Cornelis Bok (1777-1836), een opmerkelijke West-Friese kunstschilder en romanschrijver" (2005) by C. Bakker, J. R. Brozius, R. van de Pol and J. Plekker.

This makes me wonder:
1. is it true what he wrote about the old manuscript in his introduction?
2. if so, does it still exist?

### Posted 27 May 2011 - 08:36 PM
Abramelin, on 27 May 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:
You know what I am going to ask: give us a link.
... And I guess you found the confirmation of your beliefs online.

Wrong guess, I found it in a book someone gave to me today when I was doing REAL research in the Westfrisian archives in Hoorn.

There is a link between the Over de Linden family and this Cornelis Bok.

I left out the details as I thought the keywords "old manuscript", "rune-like script" and ancient Frisian nobility were interesting enough.

### Posted 28 May 2011 - 07:24 AM
Abramelin, on 28 May 2011 - 03:07 AM, said:
REAL research, hah.
You can do REAL research online, but you just have to know HOW to do it.

I know, because people like me find things in archives or private collections and publish them on the web, so that people like you can research them.

Seriously, I made 95% of the Over de Linden Genealogy with the help of the web when I was in India, but now, checking and adding things AT THE SOURCE, I find there are quite a few errors in what I found on the web.

There is a lot of information on the web, but it is not always correct and it is still not more than circa 1% of what can be found in 'real' (paper & microfilm) archives.

### Posted 28 May 2011 - 07:34 AM
Abramelin, on 28 May 2011 - 03:18 AM, said:
The clue is, "he could translate it into normal script with the help of an old school booklet".
If you are suggesting he found some early copy of the OLB, than who wrote that booklet he used to translate the rune-like script??
And 'rune-like' can be anything.

I'm not suggesting that it was an early copy of the OLB.
There's no JENNE or SICCO MAGNVS in the OLB is there?
But it could have been in the same script, since it was a manuscript about an old-(west-)Frisian history.

If he really used an old school booklet, what sort of a booklet that might have been, and who wrote it, I don't know.

A little mystery, but possibly, eventually, a solvable one.

### Posted 28 May 2011 - 07:35 AM
Abramelin, on 27 May 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:
Now that I think of it, the OLB could possibly even be authentic

Nice. We're making progress.

### Posted 30 May 2011 - 06:50 PM
Abramelin, on 30 May 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:
And I said it before, but what is truelly amazing that not one single personal name or name of a tribe showing up in these ancient Irish legends even comes close to a name in the OLB.

What about the "ÍRA" themselves?

OLB page 164-165 (Sandbach & Ottema p.223):


### Posted 03 June 2011 - 09:44 PM
Abramelin, on 02 June 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:
It is not me suggesting animosity between Frisians and the rest of the Dutch, it's Otharus.

I have not suggested animosity, but I did once try to explain a deeply rooted misunderstanding, that most Dutch will not be conscious of.

Let's try again...
The Dutch government is seated in Den Haag (in the province South Holland), at the 'Binnenhof' (inner court).

Since the 13th century this has been the center of power (except for a short time when this was the Royal Palace at Dam Square in Amsterdam).

On the square of this Binnenhof, on what may be the most prominent public place of the whole kingdom of the Netherlands, there is a fountain, on top of which there is a pseudo-golden statue of count Willem the second (1228-1256 AD).

Willem II was elected as king of the Roman Catholic German Empire in 1247 and was supposed to become emperor.

This must have made him so over-confident, that he believed he could conquer Westfriesland.

Because the Westfrisians were superior at sea, and their land was also difficult to conquer over land because of the many canals, lakes and marshes, Willem II decided to attack over land in winter, when the water was frozen (january 1256). But the ice was not thick enough, it broke and he died, possibly with the help of some Westfrisians who defended their land.

Through the whole German empire, of which Holland was a part at that time, the news spread that the (West) Frisians had brutally murdered king Willem.

Last year I visited one of the medieval castles that his son Floris V built ca. 1280, the Muiderslot, which is also a museum.

At an exhibition there about the Dutch counts, I read that Willem II had been "murdered in a cowardly fashion by the Westfrisians". ("... op lafhartige wijze door de Westfriezen vermoord")

This ridiculous 13th century propaganda is still taught to Dutch children.

In a final land-battle in 1297 (Slag bij Vroonen), the Westfrisians were conquered and between 4000 and 5000 men, which must have been close to the whole male population, were killed on one day (27 march).

### Posted 06 June 2011 - 07:22 PM
Alewyn, on 02 June 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:
You must know of the “Irish Jokes” that the English are so fond of telling. They (the English) cannot accept that the Irish has a very long and proud history – in all probability much older than that of the English. They subdued the Irish and then ridiculed and belittled them ever since. This has been a national sport for centuries now.

An Irish saying:
“Ireland was Ireland when England was but still a pup.
Ireland will be Ireland when England will be all buggered up.”

The Dutch are exactly the same as the English. They do not want to admit that Frisian history is thousands of years older than that of the Dutch. Even the oldest maps show “Frisia” but nothing of the Dutch – so you ridicule them and describe anything Frisian as fantasies, myths, apocryphal, fairytales and hoaxes.

Remember the description of a course at the University of Amsterdam?:

“One of the Characteristics of Frisian historiography and literature from the Middle-Ages up to the nineteenth and twentieth century is the existence of a comprehensive corpus of fantastic, apocryphal and mystified historic works, which deal with the origins and identity of the Frisians. Well known examples are medieval myths of origin like the Gesta Frisiorum or the Tractatus Alvini, sixteenth-century humanistic scholary books by e.g. Suffridus Petrus, Ocko van Scarl en Martinus Hamconius and nineteenth-century forgeries like the Tescklaow and the
infamous Oera Linda Book.”

It is not only the Oera Linda Book that is rejected by the Dutch, but all ancient Frisian history. You (the Dutch) seem to think that by shouting down anyone who remotely hints at a proud Frisian history, the matter will go away. Let me assure you, it will not go away. By your envy and spite you (the Dutch) are doing the world a great disservice.

Lets face it, after 140 years and a year's debate here, nobody could yet prove conclusively that the OLB is a hoax - let alone as to who supposedly commited this "fraud".
(and what about the carbon dating of the paper?) [...]

### The post about Willem II, that unintentionally reignited Abramelin's rage, was relevant because it gave an example of Hollandic propagandistic pseudo-history from the 13th century, that is still believed nowadays.
There is a difference between
"Willem II was brutally and cowardly murdered by the Westfrisians."
"Willem II died in a war that he had started himself."

###  In trying to understand what caused the recent negative vibe here, I realised that Abramelin never got the attention he desired after posting about the Irish legends.

Abramelin, on 30 May 2011 - 06:20 PM, said:
Tell me what you think about what I posted about ancient Irish legends.
Abramelin, on 30 May 2011 - 07:22 PM, said:
And what about those Irish legends? Nothing to say about them, right?
Abramelin, on 30 May 2011 - 08:13 PM, said:
Now answer me about those Irish legends.

Sorry I never answered, I didn't like your aggressive tone of voice, but I'll reply now.
I don't know enough about these Irish legends to have an opinion about them (same as the Over de Linden genealogy is not your cup of tea).
Since I've just returned after having been abroad for seven months, I've been too busy catching up with people and doing research at the archives.
I'm sure the Irish legends are really interesting and possibly relevant too.
But as I said I don't have the prioritime to read every single post here, let alone reply to all of them.
And I did't see how any of it would be in conflict with the theory that the OLB is not a hoax.
If anything I posted is in confict with facts or logic, I'm willing to discuss that.
And if there's any serious new information to support any (hoax) theory, I'll welcome and study it.

### Posted 09 June 2011 - 03:03 PM
Alewyn, on 09 June 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:
For those who are interested, herewith a translation of the first letter that Cornelis over de Linden wrote to Dr Eelco Verwijs on 7 October 1867.
From this letter, it is clear that this was their first contact with each other.

Jensma claims that this letter must have been part of their conspiracy, which we already agreed is too far fetched, specially in the context of the rest of their correspondence and all witness accounts.

1. To my mind this letter should dispel any theory of a conspiracy between these two gentlemen. Subsequent letters confirm that they had different interests and that C.o.d.L. did not trust Verwijs.
2. C.o.d.L. approached Verwijs with a view to have the manuscript translated for which he was willing to pay. He did not try to convince him of its authenticity nor did he ask him for a scholarly opinion about it. He merely wanted a translation for (apparently) his own benefit.


3. It is abundantly clear that C.o.d.L. only sent copies to Siderius, Jansen and Verwijs. He is very open and clear that he and his scribe made these copies themselves in 1867. This could explain his grandson’s statement years later that he remembered his grandfather writing.

From my post of April 14:
"Version 1 ~ Jensma (2006), p.42:
That Over de Linden has to have been the handwriter of the book, is confirmed by an important witness report of a family member. A grandson that had lived with him said that he had one day seen grandfather write 'on big sheets of paper', after which in the evening two learned doctors visited to discuss the work that had been done.
Because we can date this witness report, we can date these activities to have happened in the summer of 1869."

4. Please note Siderius’ remark that the original and the copy looked the same.
5. This could also explain the blank numbered pages (in C.o.d.L.’s handwriting) found years later, which Jensma mentioned. The blank numbered pages which corresponds with the missing pages in the OLB is thereby explained – They (he and his scribe) numbered all the pages beforehand and only realized later that these pages were missing from the old manuscript. (or else they themselves forgot to copy them).

That the blank pages were numbered "in CODL's handwriting" was suggested by Jensma, but in the article about the paper study, this was not confirmed or even suggested. Therefore, it's not likely his handwriting, Jensma just wanted to see that (and make us believe it too).
What I understand is that CODL and his assistant used transparent paper. The blank numbered paper was similar (though not the same) as the OLB paper.

6. Is it not possible (speculation) that C.o.d.L. never gave Verwijs the original and that even the copy in Leeuwarden’s Library is not the original? C.o.d.L. may have hid the original and it could be missing to this day. This would explain the 19th century paper.

It's correct that he never gave Verwijs the original, but he did show it to him, when Verwijs visited ODL. The first time he handed it over to someone was to Ottema.

The paper is not sufficiantly proven to be 19th century fabricate. The results of the examination are contradicting. It may be from Byzantium or China(?), while they are only comparing it to European and American 19th C. techniques. If the Tresoar copy was made in the 19th century, it was made before 1848 when Cornelis got it into his possession. In that case the copy was made by Rijkent Kofman (the husband of his cousin, 1820-1861), his uncle Hendrik Reuvers (1796-1845), or his grandfather Andries Over de Linden (1759-1820).

If there is an older original in the ODL family, it might very well be with the descendants of Gerard OVER DE LINDEN (1871-?) and Catharina Jacoba Hendrika KOFMAN (1873-?)

7. Before C.o.d.L. sent the copies to Verwijs he was already aware of the fact that some people thought the language was too modern. Why would he have nevertheless gone ahead and sent the manuscript to Verwijs if he knew he would be caught out? (i.e. if it was a hoax)
8. Nobody who was questioned denied that C.o.d.L. received the manuscript in 1848 from his aunt. Haverscmidt was about 13 years old at the time. So, he can also be eliminated from the conspiracy.
9. Add to this the evidence and sworn statements that people was aware of the existence of the manuscript in 1845 and, from hearsay, even in the 1830’s.

I agree that these are good arguments against any hoax theory.

From the above, it is abundantly clear (imo) that the promoters of the hoax theory deliberately ignored this evidence. It is a disgrace!

Indeed, it is.

### Posted 09 June 2011 - 10:20 PM
Abramelin, on 09 June 2011 - 01:26 PM, said:
(...) **One of the arguments forwarded for pursuing this independent course was how ancient a region was (laudatio ex vetustate). Incidentally, it was Holland with its Batavian myth that had a strong suit in hand in this matter.** To counter this, historiographers were appointed to confirm their region's age. In this capacity, the States of Friesland designated Suffridus Petrus (1527-1597), Bernardus Furmerius (1542-1616) and Pierius Winsemius (1586-1644) consecutively. Relying on traditional accounts, which they believed were ancient, Petrus and Furmerius established a line of legendary Frisian monarchs, beginning with Friso - banished from India - who was said to be a descendant of Noah's son Sem. (...)

Some of it could be based on historic facts (Friso from India), some on fantasy (Noah, Sem).
So... what?

### Posted 10 June 2011 - 10:27 AM
Abramelin, on 09 June 2011 - 01:26 PM, said:
Begun in 1568, the revolt of the Netherlands against the Spanish stimulated every Dutch province to strive to attain the greatest possible autonomy and independence from the dominant province of Holland. **One of the arguments forwarded for pursuing this independent course was how ancient a region was (laudatio ex vetustate). (...) To counter this, historiographers were appointed to confirm their region's age. In this capacity, the States of Friesland designated Suffridus Petrus (1527-1597), Bernardus Furmerius (1542-1616) and Pierius Winsemius (1586-1644) consecutively. Relying on traditional accounts, which they believed were ancient, Petrus and Furmerius established a line of legendary Frisian monarchs, beginning with Friso - banished from India (...) Some details in four of the figures in both series (figs. 15-23) seem to point to the iconographic tradition of the free Frisian countryman.

Even before these historiographers were appointed to glorify Frisian history (inspired by the revolt against the Spanish), there was a tradition about ancient Frisian ('Freedom' related) historiography, and even then the authorities were trying to suppress this(!!!):

Page 166 from "Suffridus Petrus en de Friese identiteit", by P.N. Noomen (1994)

In 1525 the Habsburgian Stadtholder had to act against "a pastor at Geesterland, who had many curious historical writings ... to eternal memory in a missal ... that he had written and who always inculcated and inspired the simple people in confessions and preachings about the Freedom of the Frisians.
{Quoted from: J.S. Theissen, "Centraal gezag en de Friesche vrijheid" (Groningen 1907) 284-285.}

Original in Dutch (the part between "" is old-Dutch):
In 1525 moest de Habsburgse stadhouder zelfs optreden tegen "een pastoir op Geesterland, die veel wonderlicke scrifftueren van historiën ... ter eeuwiger memorien in een misboeck ... gescreven heeft gehat ende den simpelen folcke in de biechte ende sermonen altyt van der vrijheid der Vriesen inculceert ende ingeblasen".

### Posted 10 June 2011 - 11:40 AM
Otharus, on 10 June 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:
"Suffridus Petrus en de Friese identiteit", by P.N. Noomen (1994)

One more, most relevant fragment about the work of Okko van Scharle (here attributed to Andreas Cornelius), from the same article,:

(Page 149-150, improvised translation by me)
The dominating scientific judgement about Andreas Cornelius' chronicle is that "all events before 1350, only mentioned by Cornelius, are fables and nothing but fables". (...) The nature of these fables is termed 'humanistic fiction'. This was different from medieval fiction, which had practical purposes and which served to support concrete rights and claims of noble families and monasteries. Humanistic fiction at the other hand, would have been much more the result of the rhetoric of individual writers, who used global terms to sing the praises of the glory and history of their city or fatherland. Andreas Cornelius' work would be pure fiction, not - like the medieval - aimed at legitimizing rights and pretentions, but at the glory and age of the Frisian people and at idolization of the ancestors of the Frisian nobility of the 16th century, by use of fictions without any factual ground or core.

In my opinion, this rigorous judgement is the consequence of the fact that the researchers limited themselves to a comparison of Andreas Cornelius' information with that of other historiographic works. A comparison with non-narrative sources, like certificates, registers and geographical data, leads to a completely different result: for many of Andreas Cornelius' fictions tangible historical crystalization points can be identified in the form of claims, rights and factual situations, for which the chronicle wants to give an explanation or legitimization.
When looking for the "factual" background one has to consider these dossiers as a whole. In every dossier many facts are probably completely fictitious and serve only as filling for continuity; but within every dossier, usually one or more fragments can be identified that with certainty or probability refer to existing institutional or geographic situations, rights and pretensions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Original text in Dutch:

Het overwegende wetenschappelijke oordeel over Andreas Cornelius' kroniek is dat "alle gebeurtenissen voor 1350, alleen door Andreas Cornelius vermeld, fabels zijn en niets dan fabels". (...) Ook over de aard van zijn fabels deed men een uitspraak: het zou gaan om humanistische fictie. Men onderscheidde die van middeleeuwse fictie, die praktische doeleinden had en die diende om concrete rechten en claims van adellijke families en kloosters een historisch fundament te verschaffen. Humanistische fictie zou daarentegen veel meer het resultaat zijn geweest van de rethorica van individuele schrijvers, die in globale termen de roem en de oudheid van hun stad of vaderland bezongen. Bij Andreas Cornelius zou het gaan om pure fictie, niet - zoals de middeleeuwse - gericht op de legitimatie van rechten en pretenties, maar op de roem en ouderdom van het Friese volk en op de verheerlijking van de voorouders van de Friese adel van de 16e eeuw, door middel van verdichtingen zonder enige feitelijke grond of kern.

Dit rigoureuze oordeel is naar mijn mening het gevolg van het feit dat de onderzoekers zich voornamelijk beperkten tot een vergelijking van Andreas Cornelius' mededelingen met die van andere historiografische werken. Een vergelijking met niet-verhalende bronnen, zoals oorkonden, registers en geografische gegevens leidt tot een geheel ander resultaat: voor veel van Andreas Cornelius' ficties blijken tastbare historische kristallisatiepunten aan te wijzen in de vorm van claims, rechten en feitelijke situaties, waarvoor de kroniek een verklaring of legitimatie wil geven.
Bij het zoeken naar een "feitelijke" achtergrond moet van deze dossiers als geheel worden uitgegaan. In ieder dossier zijn veel feiten waarschijnlijk geheel fictief en dienen slechts als vulsel ten dienste van de continuïteit; binnen elk dossier zijn echter meestal ook één of meer passages aan te wijzen die met zekerheid of waarschijnlijkheid doelen op reëel bestaande institutionele of landschappelijke situaties, rechten en pretenties.

### Posted 10 June 2011 - 06:44 PM
Abramelin, on 10 June 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:
From what I learned, most Frisians do not believe in the OLB, although many like the story, yeah.

Where did you 'learn' that? (rhetorical question) What a nonsense.
You may know a few Frisians, but there has never been a survey that could validate a statement like that.

So you tell me why most Frisians would reject the OLB?

Because it shows that their beloved 'language' is not older or more pure than Dutch (something they like to believe), but just another rural dialect.

### Posted 11 June 2011 - 05:42 AM
Abramelin, on 10 June 2011 - 09:26 PM, said:
Yeah, just other fairy tales some Frisian nationalists loved to believe in.

If they were just 'fairy tales', then why did the Habsburgian Stadtholder have to act against them?

You also - conveniently - ignored this:

Otharus, on 10 June 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:
A comparison with non-narrative sources, like certificates, registers and geographical data, leads to a completely different result: for many of Andreas Cornelius' fictions tangible historical crystalization points can be identified in the form of claims, rights and factual situations, for which the chronicle wants to give an explanation or legitimization.
... within every dossier, usually one or more fragments can be identified that with certainty or probability refer to existing institutional or geographic situations, rights and pretensions.

You have proven over and over again that you read extremely negligent (just see recent few pages for example).

A few moths ago you claimed that:

Abramelin, on 21 August 2010 - 09:37 PM, said:
The OLB itself is very short: it will take you an hour to read it whole.

Your approach to the OLB is so disdainful and based on prejudice, that the value of your judgement is very close to zero.

### Posted 11 June 2011 - 08:58 AM
Earlier we 'discussed' the possibility that there might have been religious or political motives (an 'agenda') to ignore, ridicule and suppress the OLB.

Months ago I mentioned the fact that Goffe Jensma began his first publication about the OLB (i.e. against its authenticity) with two Bible quotes.

Otharus, on 31 October 2010 - 08:59 AM, said:
Jensma's theory is that OLB was created to make fun of the Bible and the Christian religion in general.

His first publication (De Vrije Fries LXXII, 1992) about OLB with the title "Lees, leer en waak" (= Read, learn and watch out) starts with two quotes from the christian bible:

"For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect, if that were possible." Marc 13:22
"Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning..." Luke 12:35

(In Dutch:
"Want er zullen valse christussen en valse profeten opstaan en zij zullen tekenen en wonderen doen om, ware het mogelijk, de uitverkorenen te verleiden." Marcus 13:22
"Laten uwe lendenen omgord zijn en uw lampen brandende." Lucas 12:35)

Interestingly, the most fanatic OLB-opponent of the 19th century, J. Beckering Vinkers (1821-1891), also started his crusade with a Bible quote (Genesis XI verse 6):

"Ziet, het is eenerlei volk, en eenerlei spraak is onder hen allen."

("See, they are one people, and they all speak one language", or in King James Bible: "And the LORD said, Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.")


Could he have had a religious motive to reject the OLB?
Alewyn, what is your opinion about this?

### Posted 11 June 2011 - 10:29 AM
Alewyn, on 10 June 2011 - 07:19 AM, said:
One should ask the question: “If the OLB is a 19th century hoax, why did it not make more use of these Old Frisian writings?” or “Why does the OLB differ from these?”

These are very good questions indeed.

Before aksing “Why does the OLB differ from these?”, we need to establish HOW the OLB differs from the other (13th-16th century) traditions.

Here's an improvised first try to identify some of the most significant diferences:

OLB (BC): matriarchal culture, no hereditariness of power, distrust of 'princes and priests', ends few generations after arrival of Friso

Frisian tradition (AD): patriarchal, inherited power, fitting in Christian tradition, starts with arrival of Friso

The OLB provides a possible answer to the question why the later traditions differ in this way: because the latter are from the followers (and descendants) of Friso, who were more warlike (and therefore patriarchal) and wanted to break with the older ways of the Folkmothers (a reason to re-write history and leave out anything before Friso's arrival).

Note: one of the major cultural differences between (East) Friesland (the current province) and Westfriesland (part of North-Holland), is that the latter never had much of a 'nobility' culture, in strong contrast to 'Friesland'.

On the other hand, if these other old writings are just made-up stories, it still does not prove that the OLB is a hoax.

Indeed it does not, and BTW in my post #5149 I have shown that these old writings were much more than "just made-up stories" (but I think you knew that already).

### Alewyn Posted 11 June 2011 - 11:57 AM
The problem I have with people starting an argument with a Bible verse is that they are really saying: “See, I am a Christian. I will not lie to you. Trust me. Even the Bible agrees with me.”

If anybody in 19th and early 20th century Holland would have disagreed with such a person, he would have been branded as being un-Christian-like and therefore, bad. Very few people, being pack- or herd animals, would then have had the guts to side with the other party – in this case with Ottema.

We must also remember that the church in 19th century Holland still played a very prominent role in the lives of most people. Anyone that was highly regarded by the church and the church minister, would have been held in high esteem by society. In fact, for most of the time, the church was the gateway to any public office (and even today in some cultural circles)

I think it is quite likely that theologians could be uncomfortable with the OLB because in certain places it comes too close to Christianity and Judaism and in other places it actually goes against Christianity (eg Jesus of Kahmir, Budha and Khrisna). They are not able to separate history and religion.

In the case of Greek and Roman mythology, Buddism, Islam, etc., they do not have any problem to study these because the divisions and differences are obvious.

In my experience, people can always find a Bible verse to justify or motivate almost anything, regardless of whether it is quoted out of context or not, e.g.
“an eye for an eye” i.e. retaliation is good, or
“turn the other cheek” i.e. retaliation is bad

One of my favourite verses:
Luke 12:57
“Why do you not decide for yourselves what is right?”
i.e. do not follow others blindly.

### Posted 13 June 2011 - 12:58 PM
Thank for your answer Alewyn, that totally makes sense.

Alewyn, on 11 June 2011 - 11:57 AM, said:
I think it is quite likely that theologians could be uncomfortable with the OLB because in certain places it comes too close to Christianity and Judaism and in other places it actually goes against Christianity (eg Jesus of Kahmir, Budha and Khrisna).

I don't see how the fragment about Jes-us a.k.a. Buda, Krisen en Fo goes against Christianity.

Many people assume that it refers to Jesus of Nazareth, because OLB's Jes-us was also a wise man whose teachings became the base of a 'priesthood', but it's about a different time (ca. 600 BC) and it might just be possible that Jesus Christ was named after the earlier one (directly or indirectly). He will probably not have been the first with that name. If he had this name already as a child, he might have been inspired by the one who originally had the name, or if he got it later, he might have gotten it because he was seen as his 'reincarnation'.

Have you seen this 50 minutes BBC documentary? {"Jesus in India" on YouTube} I think it's worth watching in this context.

### Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:25 PM
Abramelin, on 11 June 2011 - 06:54 PM, said:
Yeah, he may have had 'curious historical writings', but I think that YOU think it was some copy of the OLB.

No I did not think that.

But there were many other 'curious historical (Frisian) writings', from long before the OLB was published.
Writings from Martinus Hamconius and Ocko Scarlensis, just to name a few.

The fragment I quoted was about 1525.
Martinus Hamconius was born ca. 1550.

The work of Okko van Scharle was prepared for publication by Andreas Cornelis (?-1589) and published in 1597.

There must have been many more 'curious historical Frisian writings', but most of them will have disappeared because people like the Habsburgian Stadtholder tended to "act against them"...

(That did not mean confiscate them and put them in a library. It meant burn them, of course.)

Otharus, on 10 June 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:
In 1525 the Habsburgian Stadtholder had to act against "a pastor at Geesterland, who had many curious historical writings ... to eternal memory in a missal ... that he had written and who always inculcated and inspired the simple people in confessions and preachings about the Freedom of the Frisians.

### Posted 14 June 2011 - 08:27 AM
Otharus, on 14 June 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:
about this 6th Century BC Jes-us/ Fo/ Kris-en/ Buda character

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.org/ebooks/1397

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."

For Goffe Jensma, this is proof that Over de Linden was involved in the supposed fabrication of the OLB, but there are too many facts contradicting this theory.

The name Yes or Yes-us may indeed be much older and Jesus of Nazareth (a.k.a. Issa?) may have learned many of his later teachings in the east. He may even have gotten the name by which we know him there.

The main question here is:

Is the OLB based on these late 18th century ideas, or are these ideas based on the same truth of which the OLB gives a reflection?

### Alewyn Posted 14 June 2011 - 11:11 AM
Both videos are very interesting, especially the parts about Jesus’ “missing years” and the speculation about Jesus having been trained as a Buddhist monk.

People who follow this line of thought like to emphasize the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity, such as the sanctity of life, compassion for others, rejection of violence, charity and the practice of virtue. These, of course, are not unique to Christianity and Buddhism but are also core values to Hinduism, Islam and a host of other smaller religions.

Two of the main differences between Buddhism and Christianity, on the other hand, are:
1. Buddhism rejects the belief in the soul: the essence of a person that lives on, unchanged, after death for all eternity, as is the case with Christianity (and Hinduism, Islam, etc.).
2. Buddhism also rejects the notion of a creator or supreme God.

Both these principles, which are very different from Buddhism, were at the very core of Jesus’ ministry. I cannot say he did or did not go to India in his youth (nobody can) or that he studied Buddhism, but I find it hard to believe that he was a Buddhist monk as this BBC “documentary” suggests.

I have read Nicolas Notovitch’s translation of the "Life of Saint Issa, Best of the Sons of Men." which he found at the Hemis Monastery in Ladakh. The teachings of Issa (Jesus) are very similar to those of Jesus of Nazareth, but they are quite different from Buddhism.

The second video also relates two very different legends as to what happened to Jesus after he “survived” the crucifixion, namely: 1. Jesus went to France, and 2. Jesus went to India. Adherents to either legend believe they are right. Obviously they cannot be both right but, they can be both wrong.

This documentary conveniently ignored some crucial facts around the crucifixion. They quite rightly say that the victim could have died of suffocation if he stayed on the cross long enough (even days). They failed to mention, however, that the chances were bigger to have died from surgical shock (Loss of blood) which would have been much quicker. Remember the nails were driven through his wrists near the pulses and not through his palms as those modern day Indians do. Secondly, he was flogged with a Roman flagrum by professionals which would also have caused blood loss and lastly, they pressed a spear from below his ribcage into his heart.

They nailed his feet together with spikes or nails big enough to carry his weight. Would you say that he would have been able to walk less than 48 hours later – even ignoring his other wounds? Yet, he appeared to some of his followers on the Sunday after his crucifixion, both at the grave and later on the road to Emmaus.

Those Roman executioners were professionals and they would have made sure that he was very dead before they would have allowed his body to have been taken off the cross. If they were found to have made a mistake, the chances are they would have been executed themselves. They made sure that he was dead.

Another thought: When Jesus was arrested, his disciples all fled. Later, Peter denounced him publically. Yet, some 40 days later, after they have witnessed his resurrection and ascension, they fearlessly preached the gospel with no regard to their own safety. From Biblical and non-Biblical sources, we learn that at least 11 of the 12 eventually died violently for their faith (Stoning, crucifixion, burned at the stake, etc.). Would they have done this for a lie?

The documentary also suggests that when the empty tomb was discovered, Jesus had disappeared (and then later reappeared in either France or India). They conveniently keep silent about the fact that he appeared to more than 500 people in Palestine shortly after his death. Again, if this was a lie, there would have been enough people to expose these disciples.

Then there were the Old Testament prophecies about his life and death and lastly, his prophecies regarding his own death. If he made these prophecies with a mind to tricking the executioners, he really took a long chance.

### Posted 15 June 2011 - 07:47 AM
Alewyn, on 15 June 2011 - 07:30 AM, said:
For now I shall stick with “Jessos” being a “Frisianized” version of “Yeshua”.

In the original manuscript it is "JES.US", which is "Jes-us".
Ottema translated this into "Jessos" (copied by Sandbach), Jensma into "Jezus", both wrong.
The "J" is pronounced as "Y".

### Posted 15 June 2011 - 08:33 AM
cormac mac airt, on 15 June 2011 - 05:40 AM, said:
... it's hard to see how someone would have gotten the name 600+ years before Jesus while living in Kashmir.

That may be hard to see, because there's not many known sources from that time and area, but it's not impossible.
It would be interesting to know where Volney got his information about Yes/ Yes-us from.

### Posted 15 June 2011 - 11:49 AM
Alewyn, on 15 June 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:
The actual spelling is Ies-sus in the manuscript.

To be precise: an I with a dot is used, which is a J, pronounced Y (same as in "JOL"; YOL).

### Posted 15 June 2011 - 01:04 PM
What do we know about "Jes-us" (Yes-us) in OLB?

- born 1600 years after atland sank (= ca. 600 BC) in Kasamír, in the heart of Findas-land.
- his mother was daughter of a king, his father head-priest.
- he was raised by poor people, because he was an unofficial child and his parents felt ashamed.
- he became friends with a Fryan navigator whom he had freed from slavery and from whom he learned Fryan ethics.
- he died after having travelled around for 12 years.
- after his death a priesthood based themselves upon his teachings (twisting some of them); they wore torn clothers, suggesting poverty, killed (suppressed) their desires, lived in celibacy and shaved their heads.

Teachings of Jes-us (Yes-us) in OLB:

- to not accept kings and priests (THÀT HJA NÉNE RIKA NER PRESTERA TOLÉTA MOSTON)


- quote:

The earth bestowed her gifts on those who scratch her skin;
so all aught to dig, plough, and sow
if they wish to reap,
but no one is obliged to do it for another
unless it be out of general will or love.

- one should not dig gold, silver or precious stones out of Earth, "as 'need' (envy, malice) sticks to them and love flees from them".

- quote:

To embellish your daughters and wives,
her (Earth's) rivers offer enough.

- quote:

No-one is able to give everyone wealth and constant luck,
but it is everyone's duty,
to make the people as wealthy and to give them as much pleasure,
as possible.

- quote:

No wisdom should be despised.
But to share evenly is the greatest wisdom that time may teach us.
Because that wards off badnes from Earth and feeds love.

that one should master and govern his desires/ thoughts/ draughts.


Apart from the name (Jes-us or Yes-us) and the fact that after his death a priesthood arose, (loosely) based upon his teachings, there don't seem to be that many specific similarities with Jesus Christ.

What about the fragment about gold, silver and gemstones? Is there anything like that in the Christian teachings? (I still have to fill that gap in my education.)

### Posted 15 June 2011 - 05:40 PM
Abramelin, on 15 June 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:
who are these "Linda’s folk" in the prophecy?

It's a translation error: the original text says "LYDA.S FOLK"

### Posted 15 June 2011 - 06:06 PM
Abramelin, on 15 June 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:
Btw, it's quite a coincidence (?) that the nickname "Fo" can be seen as the French word "Faux"...

In Volney's Ruines, this name is mostly spelled "Fot".

Beyond these, that cloud of standards, which, on a yellow ground, common to them all, bear various emblems, are those of the same god, who reins under different names in the nations of the East. The Chinese adores him in Fot,* the Japanese in Budso, the Ceylonese in Bedhou, the people of Laos in Chekia, of Pegu in Phta, of Siam in Sommona-Kodom, of Thibet in Budd and in La. Agreeing in some points of his history, they all celebrate his life of penitence, his mortifications, his fastings, his functions of mediator and expiator, the enmity between him and another god, his adversary, their battles, and his ascendency. But as they disagree on the means of pleasing him, they dispute about rites and ceremonies, and about the dogmas of interior doctrine and of public doctrine.

* The original name of this god is Baits, which in Hebrew signifies an egg. The Arabs pronounce it Baidh, giving to the dh an emphatic sound which makes it approach to dz. Kempfer, an acurate traveler, writes it Budso, which must be pronounced Boudso, whence is derived the name of Budsoist and of Bonze, applied to the priests. Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata, writes it Bedou, as it is pronounced also by the Chingulais; and Saint Jerome, Boudda and Boutta. At Thibet they call it Budd; and hence the name of the country called Boud-tan and Ti-budd: it was in this province that this system of religion was first inculcated in Upper Asia; La is a corruption of Allah, the name of God in the Syriac language, from which many of the eastern dialects appear to be derived. The Chinese having neither b nor d, have supplied their place by f and t, and have therefore said Fout.


Note: "fout" in Dutch is "fault"
(Similar: Dutch "vals", English "false", German "falsch", OLB-language "FALX" or "FALSK")

### Posted 16 June 2011 - 07:50 AM
The Puzzler, on 16 June 2011 - 04:20 AM, said:
This Jessos character was not born around 600BC, he was born when Atland sank.
You are all ignoring this.
"Sixteen hundred years ago (she writes, 593 B.C.), Atland was submerged..."
Sixteen hundred years ago Atland was submerged AND AT THAT TIME...
It's pretty clear and pretty obvious that is when it means.

Welcome back Puzzler, but sorry, you're wrong 2 times.

1) The name is "ies.us" in the manuscript, which transliterates as "Jes-us" (a "j" because the "i" has a dot) and might be translated into English as "Yes-us" (because of pronounciation of the J). "Jessos" was an invention of Ottema that was copied by Sandbach.

2) Most historiographic stories in the OLB start with their dating:
p.1 "30 years after the Folkmother was killed..."
p.6 "it was 7 x 7 years after Fàsta was appointed..."
p.47 "before the bad times came..."
p.50 "101 years after Aldland had sank..."
p.62 "563 years after Aldland had sank..."
p.68 "10 years after Jon was brought away..."
p.72 "when Hellenja or Minerva had died..."
p.75 "in the year 1005 after Aldland sank this was written..."
p.79 "... 1602 years after Aldland perished"
p.119 "two years after Gosa became Mother..."
p.120 "after we had been 12 x 100 and 2 x 12 years at the Five Waters..."
p.130 "in the times that our land sank down"
And once at the end:
p.117 "that happened 1888 years after Atland had sank"

If the Jes-us story really happened "when Atland was submerged", the author could have easily started the story with "In the time that Atland was submerged...", but she starts with "1600 years ago...", and you suggest that she did this to mention when she wrote the story down.

This does not make sense.

She aims at dating the time when Jes-us lived and the point of reference is "when Atland sank", not when she wrote it, because we (the readers from the future) don't know when she wrote it.

From the context it is clear (and all translators agree about this) that the phrase should be read as:

"It was 1600 years after Atland had sank, and at that time..." etcetera

### Posted 16 June 2011 - 08:06 AM
cormac mac airt, on 16 June 2011 - 07:55 AM, said:
Which makes me wonder how much more of the full translation was placed into English incorrectly.

Unfortunately, there's a terrible lot of incorrect translations in the English version as it has both Ottema's mistakes and Sandbach's added to them (Sandbach translated Ottema's translation).

For some examples, see the strikethroughs in my reading exercises here: http://fryskednis.blogspot.nl/2011/04/learn-to-read-olb-reading-exercises.html (some are just improvements, but many are real hardcore mistakes)

### Posted 16 June 2011 - 10:29 AM
The Puzzler, on 16 June 2011 - 10:29 AM, said:
It's the most important part of the whole book, that you should give your best attention and you are not.

It may be the most important part to you. You're the first one to qualify it like that.

I argued WHY the Jes-us story has to be dated 600 BC.

Why do you think it was written 600 BC? Because we know when Atland sank. Why is the author mentioning "1600 after Atland sank"? Not to say when it was written, because it is followed by "and at that time something happened". Also the whole story does not fit in the time of these big disasters, because that time was all about surviving.

### Posted 16 June 2011 - 10:55 AM
The Puzzler, on 16 June 2011 - 10:41 AM, said:
It's simply clear to me that Jesus was born when Atland sank, 1600 years ago from when she writes.

How do you know when she wrote?

### Posted 16 June 2011 - 11:05 AM
The story about Jes-us from Kasamír is placed between the writings of Hel-lénja (starting at p.134 of the original manuscript), that are added by Wil-jo, widow of Frétho-rik 'Oera Linda'.

Wiljo and Fréthorik lived ca. 300 BC.

It's more likely that she added a text about something that happened 300 years before her time (600 BC), than that a (then) 300 years old text was added about something that had happened 1900 years before her time.

Also, if Jes-us really lived 2200 BC, and if he was really that important, then why did he not appear earlier in the Book of the Followers of Adela that deals about the period 2200-600BC?

### Posted 16 June 2011 - 11:31 AM
The Puzzler, on 16 June 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:
"Sixteen hundred years ago (she writes, 593 B.C.), Atland was submerged; and at that time something happened...

Yes, that was added by Sandbach. He misinterpreted that, and it is confusing indeed.
But the sinking of Atland was the point of reference, like our year zero.
Not everything can be translated literally, sometimes one needs to interpret what is meant.
In this case it is clear. It's like someone of our time who is a bit clumsy with language would say:

"1600 years ago Christ was born, and in that year something odd happened..."

If this is written for future generations, we need a reference of WHEN this was written, to know when Christ was born.
But we don't need to know when Christ was born, because all our year-counting was based on this reference-year zero.
So what the writer here means to say is that "something odd happened 1600 years after Christ was born."

Now it's the same with the Atland-sinking year. That was their year zero.
If the Jes-us story really happened then, the writer would just have said: "when Atland sank".

### Posted 16 June 2011 - 12:52 PM
The Puzzler, on 16 June 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:
This is who the Christians worshipped in Egypt.

But what's the relevance of this to the OLB-discussion?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
BTW your idea that the Kings from the east might have believed that our baby Jesus from Bethlehem was a reincarnation of Jes-us of Kasimír (with maybe several others in between) is interesting. He might through them have gotten his education in the east (in the so-called missing years), before he came back to Israel-Palestine to teach.

### Posted 16 June 2011 - 05:39 PM
cormac mac airt, on 16 June 2011 - 04:53 PM, said:
If Sandbach added the part "she writes, 593 BC" then the only thing he's attempted to do is to clarify when a written account of the event was put to paper.

There's the event (1) and when it was written (2).

Sandbach interpreted it the way Puzzler reads it:
(1) = when Atland sank (2193 BC)
(2) = 1600 yrs later (593 BC)

Ottema did not add an interpretation (he just literally translated it), and Jensma (2006) reads it like Alewyn and I do:

(1) = 1600 yrs after Atland sank (ca.600 BC)
(2) = unknown but copied ca.300 BC by WILJO from the writings of HEL-LÉNJA

Here's the introduction to this text from Wiljo (p.134 of original manuscript):

when I went to the Saxana-marka, I have saved three books:
the book of songs, the tales and the Héléna-book.
I write this, so one will not think that they are from Apollánja.
I have had much suffering from it, so I also want to have the honour.
I have also done more. When Gosa Makonta had fallen,
who's goodness and clairvoyance have become proverbial,
I have gone to Texland all by myself
to copy the writings that she had left behind.
And when the last will from Frana was found,
and the writings that Dela or Hellénja had left behind, I've done that once more.
These are the writings of Hellénja.
I put them before the others, as they are the oldest.

### Posted 16 June 2011 - 05:45 PM
Otharus, on 16 June 2011 - 05:39 PM, said:
Ottema did not add an interpretation (he just literally translated it), and Jensma (2006) reads it like Alewyn and I do:
(1) = 1600 yrs after Atland sank (ca.600 BC)
(2) = unknown but copied ca.300 BC by WILJO from the writings of HEL-LÉNJA

If OLB's JES-US aka KRIS-EN aka FO aka BUDA indeed lived in the 6th Century BC, he may have been the same as the 'Buddha' aka 'Fot' (many spellings possible for both) who is also believed (by some) to have lived in the 6th Century BC.

### Posted 17 June 2011 - 06:28 AM
The Puzzler, on 17 June 2011 - 01:24 AM, said:
Who is Jessos? Like, what is that?
In the English version his name is JESSOS, see ---- "His first name was Jessos,"

That was after I had spelled-out half a dozen times that in the manuscript it's "JES-US".

I don't know why Ottema changed this into Jessos. Sandbach copied it.

Personal and geographical names should not be changed, unless we are completely sure who or what is meant, as the interpretation can be completely wrong.

Remember GÉRT.PIRE.HIS TOGHATER (Gért, Pire's daughter, page 72), translated by Jensma as "Gertje, the daughter of Great Pier" (daughter of a 15th/16th century Frisian hero).

Similarly, it is not sure that FORÁNA is Vroonen. In the original name it becomes clear that the name originally means "voor-aan" (in front), in translations these meanings easily get lost.

There's countless examples of this.

If the translator thinks he/she knows who or what is meant, this can be added in a footnote, so the reader can decide for him or herself.

### Posted 17 June 2011 - 07:12 AM
The Puzzler, on 17 June 2011 - 01:24 AM, said:
It's clear as mud in any language:
Sixteen hundred years ago (she writes, 593 B.C.), Atland was submerged; and at that time something happened which nobody had reckoned upon.

The original text, my transliteration:

Where does it say "(she writes, 593 B.C.)"?
It doesn't say that, of course.

Someone who is writing history uses a known reference point to make it clear when something happened.

Here (as it is usually in the OLB), this reference point is the sinking of Atland (that we know from Hidde's letter was supposed to have been ca.2200 years before our point of reference: BC).

When something happened "at that time" when it was "16 times 100 years ago" that Atland had sank, it means that the story that is about to be told, has to be placed 1600 years AFTER the point of reference (when Atland had sank), that is for us: ca.600 BC.

### Posted 17 June 2011 - 08:18 AM
cormac mac airt, on 17 June 2011 - 07:52 AM, said:
Perhaps that's a Dutch or Frisian convention, Otharus, but it's not in English unless it's stated that the date for the latter event (in this case concerning Jes-us) was 1600 years later.

Yes, that's what I meant: 1600 years after the point of reference.

### Posted 17 June 2011 - 08:32 AM
Let's suppose that OLB's Jes-us/ Kris-en/ Fo/ Buda is referring to someone historical or mythological, whether OLB is authentic or a hoax.

Is there someone that's supposed to have lived ca. 2200 BC that can be referred to here?

What about ca. 600 BC?
Yes: Buddha a.k.a. Fot.

### Posted 17 June 2011 - 09:08 AM
cormac mac airt, on 17 June 2011 - 08:50 AM, said:
It's really rather a moot point, IMO, as whomever came up with "Jes-us" attempted to create enough connections between him and Jesus Christ, effectively pulling at least the idea of Christ 600 years out of time anyway. And regardless of what anyone may or may not have believed from other cultures (any of which would have happened long after Christ's death), within his own culture Jesus Christ was never compared even remotely with Buddha or Krishna.

That's only true when you assume the OLB is a hoax and the story is just made up.
And there's not that much connections at all between OLB's Jes-us and Jesus Christ.
Volney (1757-1820) also made a relation with a "Yes-us" (not Jesus Christ) to Buddha.
It would be interesting to know his source for this.

### Alewyn Posted 17 June 2011 - 09:25 AM
Frya in Zoroastrianism

According to the OLB, the Gertmanne (Fryans) arrived in India ca 1500 BC. They first settled east of the Punjab and called the country Gertmannia. Later they went west (towards Persia) and called their new land “Ny-Gertmannia”. Herodotus (c. 484 BC – c. 425 BC) wrote about “Gertmania” and by the time of Alexander the Great (356 BC– 323 BC), it was known as "Carmania". Today it is known as the province of "Kerman" in Iran. (Herodotus tells us that the “Germanians” were cattle farmers)

In “Survivors of the Great Tsunami” I made the point that these Gertmanne, or Fryans, were involved in the establishment of the Persian Empire.

The old religion of Persia is known as “Zoroastrianism” and their oldest writings are known as the “Avesta”. Historians tell us that the religion dates back to some time after the Aryan “invasion” in c. 1500 BC. Strangely enough, this just happens to coincide with the arrival of the OLB’s “Gertmanne”. (A-ryan vs F-ryan?)

The “Book of Adela’s Followers” in the OLB was compiled c. 530 BC in Western Europe. At the time they still referred to themselves as “the children of Frya”.

This led me to reason that, if the OLB is true, there just may be some references in the Avesta to these Fryans. This is what I found:


Chapter 46
12. When among the laudable descendants and posterity of the Turanian Fryana the right ariseth, through activity of piety that blesseth substance; then shall Good Thought admit them, and Mazda Ahura give them protection at the Fulfillment.

Khorda Avesta

119. We worship the Fravashi of the holy Frya.

They also mention many other persons(?) that they worship (honour?)

Who or what are the “Fravashi”. Some think they are guardian angels. Professor Mary Boyce (1920-2006) speculated that perhaps the fravashis are the remnants of the hero-cult of the "Iranian Heroic Age" (c. 1500 BCE onwards), when ancestor-worship was widespread.
In Avestan language grammar, the fravashi are unmistakably female.

Zoroastrian names

frya An ashavan. Cf. yt13.110; yt13.119.
fryana Ancestor of Yoishta. Cf. yt13.120.

and also:
frâyaodha [Frayaodha] (m) An ashavan, son of Karesna. Cf. yt13.108. (Frya the Old?)
frâyazenta [Fraya-zanta] (m) An ashavan, father of Frena and Jaro-vanghu. Cf. yt13.113. Father-in-law of Freni. Cf. yt13.140.
frênah [Frenah] (m) An ashavan, son of Fraya-zanta. Cf. yt13.113. (Frana in OLB?)
frênay [Freni] (f) The eldest daughter of Zarathushtra; (2) An ashavan, wife of Usenemah; (3) An ashavan, wife of the son of Frayazanta;(4) An ashavan, wife of the son of Khshoiwraspa; (5) An ashavan, wife of Gayadhasti. Cf. yt13.139, 140.

An "Ashavan" apparently denotes any follower of the "Good Religion”

Frya worship in the OLB and Frya worship in Zoroastrianism a coincidence? I think not.

### Posted 17 June 2011 - 09:25 AM
cormac mac airt, on 17 June 2011 - 09:18 AM, said:
Not really. I don't see it as an "either-or" proposition. The OLB can have some local history and still not be accurate overall as to European/Mediterranean/Middle Eastern history. Something I've said a few times now.

The point here was the question what is more likely: that 2200 BC was meant or 600 BC?
IMO the answer here is 600 BC because of Buda/ Fo (and Kasamír).
And what I meant is that what you said is only true when you assume the Jes-us story is just made up and not based on a historical character (that lived either 600 or 2200 BC).

### Posted 18 June 2011 - 11:17 PM
Abramelin, on 17 June 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:
Well, what Alewyn found is certainly very interesting, but if you consider the fact that Volney had studied Zoroastrianism, then maybe Cornelis Over de Linden also knew about the Frya of Zoroastrianism.

Wait a minute: it was Volney who had studied Zoroastrianism and very possibly also mentioned this Frya in his works; I don't know if Halbertsma did too.

No, Frya was not mentioned in Volneys book.
Nobody writing about the OLB has ever noticed that a Frya is also worshipped in Zoroastrianism (as far as I know).
It is a most significant find.

### Posted 18 June 2011 - 11:19 PM
The Puzzler, on 17 June 2011 - 04:08 PM, said:
Makes me wonder how Fryans were in the area of Jesus birth, when Atland sank, if I am correct.

No, you are not correct.
You just mentioned yet another reason why the Jes-us story has to be dated 1600 years after Atland sank = 600 BC.
And we don't know when it was written.
Only that Wiljo copied it ca 300 BC from the writings of Dela aka Hellenja (who is probably not the same as Adela).
It does not make sense to write that Atland sank 1600 years ago (not being the point of reference), when there is no reference as to when it was written.

### Posted 18 June 2011 - 11:30 PM
Abramelin, on 17 June 2011 - 05:46 PM, said:
What I find very interesting is that no one dares to touch that prophecy (about what will happen 4000 years after the submergence of Aldland = 1806 AD) with a ten-foot pole.
Because if you do, you will find out things you don't want to find out (when you are a believer in the OLB, that is).
I seriously think this socalled 'prophecy' is one of the hints hidden in the OLB.

What about the other 'prophecy' from Frana on page 83-84?
That's about 193 BC (2000 years after Atland sank) and 807 AD (3000 years AAS).
Are these clues too?

The French Revolution did not start in 1806. Napoleon's brother became king, but that didn't last long.
Holland became a kingdom, yes. Not the sort of revolution as prophecised.
I have read nothing significant after Alewyn's Avesta-Frya post.
Now that was a revolutionary find.
We're not done with that yet.

### Posted 19 June 2011 - 02:53 PM
The Puzzler, on 19 June 2011 - 01:33 PM, said:
If you write it was 100 years ago Atland was sunken it would be 2093BC - if you wrote it was 1000 years ago Atland was sunken it would be 1093BC - if you wrote it was 1600 years ago Atland was sunken it would be 593BC

"... it would be 593BC"

The text continues with "... and at that time something odd happened...", that is: in (ca.) 593 BC (= ca. 600 BC).

Your interpretation is that the story starts with saying when it was written (which does not make sense).

My (and Alewyn's and Jensma's) interpretation is that the story starts with saying when this "something" happened (which makes perfect sense).

If this "something" happened when Atland sank, the author would just have written "when Atland sank, something happened..." etcetera.

- it's very easy to tell when each part was written if they include the reference to Atland sinking, which this part does.

No it doesn't say that "at that time the story was written". It says "at that time something happened".

Just think of it like this:

"it was/is 1600 years after Atland had sank... at THAT time something happened"

"(it was) 1600 years ago (that) Atland had sank... at THAT time (when it was 1600 years after Atland had sank), something happened"

### Posted 19 June 2011 - 06:19 PM
Abe, about your '1806 - revolution prophecy - hint' theory:
It is 4000 years after Atland sank.
That year of the sinking of Atland (2193 BC) was also used in old-Frisian almanacks.
They will not have chosen that year because it was exactly 4000 years before Napoleon's bro became king here.
Therefore, it is at best (if you will) a 'co-incidence' that he became king 4000 years after the supposed flood-year, just like anything that happened in that year, as well as in the years 806 AD, 1193 BC and 193 BC.
Thus, that this would be a hint by the supposed creators of the OLB is too far-fetched.
Case closed for me.

### Posted 19 June 2011 - 06:32 PM
Abramelin, on 19 June 2011 - 04:40 PM, said:
It only proves the ones writing the OLB loved the ideas of the French Revolutionaries...

As long as it is not proven that the OLB was composed during or after the French Revolution, this is nonsense.
It will not be difficult to find loads of political or utopist texts from all times, before and after this revolution, in which freedom (liberty), equality and solidarity (brotherhood) are idealised.

### Posted 19 June 2011 - 06:49 PM
Abramelin, on 19 June 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:
Alewyn, I was sort of shocked... I thought, "Goddamn, this looks like the OLB script".
But upon a closer look I recognized it as Meroitic script.

Their letter K (or Q) is at least fascinating

It's good to note that there are more historic scripts (archaeological or in old manuscripts) that are unique, in the sense that there are no other sources found in (exactly) the same letter-types.

It's good to keep in mind that many libraries have burnt down through the ages and that book-burnings has always been a practice in conflicts (culture-clashes).

### Posted 19 June 2011 - 07:07 PM
Abramelin, on 19 June 2011 - 06:34 PM, said:
The date of the submergence of Aldland was not 2193 BC, but 2194 BC.

Whatever, for me it's just ca. 2200 BC

The 1806 AD date was close to the time the creators of the OLB started putting the OLB on paper.

Nothing but speculation by you.
We still don't even know the age of the paper.

I think it is not too farfetched to assume the creators of the OLB used their ideas, and calculated a starting date for the OLB, using the start of the French Revolution AND the Frisian date for the Flood. And, maybe, the date of birth of Halbertsma. And, maybe, his close contact with a nephew of Napoleon.

Suppose the OLB is an authentic copy of something really old...

The Frisian flood-year from the almanacks may be based on the same truth on which it is based.

The ideals that led to the French Revolution (and a few others) may be based on it.
(Remember all the old-Frisian texts that were all about 'freedom' (liberté)?)

All the things that we found during the last year that correspond with other sources (all supposed to be known by your supposed hoaxers), may be (more) easily explained, when OLB is actually authentic.

All supposed 19th century ´suspects´ may actually have been honest and have spoken the truth.

### Posted 19 June 2011 - 07:46 PM
cormac mac airt, on 19 June 2011 - 07:34 PM, said:
... even after nearly a year of this there still isn't any evidence for the submergence of an area in or around the North Sea even remotely close to that time.

To you and some others, that may be the main question/ theme.
But since this thread was merged, there's many other questions to be answered.

Even if that year would not be accurate, or even when the whole flood-story would be fiction, IF it is true that Hidde Oera Linda copied the manuscript in 1256 AD (whether our OLB is a later copy or the original), it would be a most significant source that deserves to be token more seriously.

Like I said before, the book says that its first version was compiled ca. 600 BC.
The flood story by then was already 1600 years old, and therefore, possibly, partly mythological.

### Posted 19 June 2011 - 07:55 PM
Otharus, on 19 June 2011 - 07:07 PM, said:
The Frisian flood-year from the almanacks may be based on the same truth on which it is based.

More likely they may be based on Adela's book (which may or may not be partly based on some truth).

### Posted 19 June 2011 - 08:41 PM
cormac mac airt, on 19 June 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:
If the year is not accurate or the whole flood story is fiction then the OLB cannot be seen as historically accurate in it's entirety. Which goes against many claims made here in this very thread, as well as Alewyn's book. At best the OLB is semi-historical.

Even if the OLB would 'only' be 13th century fiction, it would be SPECTACULAR.
Language, culture, psychology, to name just a few perspectives other than factual history.

### Posted 20 June 2011 - 07:46 AM
Abramelin, on 20 June 2011 - 01:10 AM, said:
Fascinating because 1 letter of the Meroitic script is (with an adaptation) similar to 1 letter in the OLB script??

Yes, specially since this 'adaptation' makes the letter more Yol-like than the 'Fryan' K.
It is as if the curve on the right was added to stress that the letter was taken from the six-spoked wheel.

### Posted 20 June 2011 - 08:18 AM
Abramelin, on 20 June 2011 - 12:52 AM, said:
I seriously doubt that if you found proof the OLB was a hoax that you would post about it.

I bought and studied Dr. Jensma's book about his conspiracy-/ hoax-theory ("De Gemaskerde God", 2004) as well as his translation ("Het Oera Linda-boek", 2006).

I translated and posted many fragments from them, mostly to show where and why I think he is wrong.

When I started reading the OLB two years ago, I had a completely open mind.

If I would have only been interested in confirming a belief in its authenticity, I would have ignored Jensma's books. I also did not ignore Menno Knul's theory.

I just want to know the truth, and the more I know, the less doubt I have about OLB's authenticity.

However incredible it is, to me it is far more credible than that the whole manuscript would have been created in the 19th century.
That would be more than incredible...
I almost dare say that's impossible.
But I would still consider and discuss any serious new argument.

### Posted 20 June 2011 - 09:13 AM
Nice quote from prof. Vitringa, translated by Sandbach (1872):
"If the book is a romance, then I must admit that it has been written with a good object, and by a clever man, because the sentiments expressed in it are of a highly moral tendency..."

The underlined part is important IMO.
I suspect that may be the main cause of why the discussion (both back then AND now) has often been emotional and irrational.
The dominant paradigm is that pre-christian Northern Europe was primitive and 'barbaric', the result of a few hundred years of brainwashing propaganda.

### Posted 20 June 2011 - 08:33 PM
Abramelin, on 20 June 2011 - 06:13 PM, said:
Anyway, here are those pages from Overwijn's book, the 2 discussing that Menapian 'poem' I mentioned (actually, it's the Lord's Prayer):

Here's the 'Menapian' fragment from page 30a (in capitals so it's easier to campare with OLB language), with my improvised translation.

they left god their creator
and turned away from their god's hail,
they angered him with strange gods (idols),
they offered the devil, and not god,
gods that they knew not.

- - -
It's clearly from the same language family as the other old-Frisian dialects.
The words from the first line, in OLB-language:

they = HJA
to leave, left = VRLÉTEN
god = GOD
their = HJARA
creating = SKEPPANDE

So the first line in something closer to 'Fryan' could be:

### Posted 21 June 2011 - 07:30 AM
The Puzzler, on 21 June 2011 - 02:06 AM, said:
Funny I wake up and Otharus has used this word: Hail.
... Held!

Nice, Puzzler. Adding to that, the ice-chrystal ("hail" as in little iceballs in Dutch and German is "hagel"), and the rune (also used for health)...

### Posted 21 June 2011 - 05:33 PM
Abramelin, on 21 June 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:
"Who is Fran?"
"Huh? Oh, you mean Frana?"

See Montanus Hettema's Frisian dictionary:
"Fran, fraen = heilig" (note, Puzzler: HEILig!)

So FRAN in old-Frisian means holy or sacred.
Ottema translated it with "vroom" = pious, devout, godly, etc.

### Posted 21 June 2011 - 08:21 PM
Abramelin, on 21 June 2011 - 05:39 PM, said:
And btw: "vroon" =/= "vroom".
Sorry Ottema...

In cases like this it is a good thing to look at the context in which the word is used, before you can make a statement like that.

To examine the meaning of the word FRANA (or FRÁNA), other than the name, I took the seven fragments and added both Ottema's and Sandbach's translation (with some corrections, improvements or suggestions added).

In the overview below it becomes clear that "vroom" in some cases is actually a reasonable translation, and at least as close to the original word as possible. The current meaning in Dutch is "pious", but originally the meaning seems to have been something like "sacred", "holy" or "devout".

FRANA = sacred, holy, devout, pious
==>> see seperate post on Fryskednis

### Posted 21 June 2011 - 09:38 PM
Abramelin, on 21 June 2011 - 05:39 PM, said:
Heh, you beat me to it, but I found something else:

Hoogstwaarschijnlijk is Franeker omstreeks 800 in de Karolingische tijd op de rijpe kwelder ontstaan. Archeologische vondsten van voor die tijd zijn in en rond Franeker nauwelijks gedaan. De Bredeplaats verraad in haar rechthoekige vorm nog steeds het Karolingische Castellum dat de oorsprong van de stad is geweest. De Frana-eker zou de grond zijn die de Frana of Vroonheer als vertegenwoordiger van de keizer, in bezit had. Frana of Vrone is een Oud-Germaans woord voor heer.

In all probability Franeker came into existence around 800 during the Carolingian period in the fresh new marsh. Hardly any archeological discoveries were done from before that time in and around Franeker. The "Bredeplaats", because of its rectangular shape, still shows that the Carolingian Castellum was the origin of the city. Frana-eker would be the land owned by the Frana or Vroonheer (Vroon lord), a representative of the emperor. Frana or Vroon is an ancient Germanic word for lord.

If "Franeker" is derived from the old-Frisian word FRAN(A) (see Hettema's dictionary), here's a nice example of how bastardized the modern Frisian 'language' is (I'd rather call it an ennobled rural dialect):

The modern Frisian name for the city is Frjentsjer, "Franeker" is the Dutch or 'Westfrisian' name.

### Posted 22 June 2011 - 04:55 PM
Abramelin, on 22 June 2011 - 11:29 AM, said:
You could have saved yourself a lot of work, if you had clicked the link in my former post, Otharus:

frâ-n-a (1) 1 und häufiger?, afries., Adj.: nhd. dem Herrn gehörig, heilig; ne. holy
(Adj.), belonging (Adj.) to the lord; Vw.: s. -al-tare; E.: s. frâ-n-a (2); L.: Hh 31a,
Rh 756b

I wanted to know what the word means in the OLB, not what it means according to dictionaries.

And my point was, that Ottema was right (other than you claimed), translating FRANA (in some cases) with "vroom" (pious, devout).

But the interesting thing is that FRANA as adjective means 'holy' or 'pious', and that FRANA as noun has to do with leader, king, whatever.

FRANA does NOT mean leader, king, judge etc. in the OLB.
(For the various meanings in the OLB see the context of the eight fragments I quoted.)

That latter meaning was recorded more than 1000 years later than when OLB was supposed to be written.

It's a nice example of 2 words that are written exactly the same, but mean something totally different and have a different function in a sentence (noun vs adjective).

I don't agree that the (newer) meaning is "totally different".
In my opinion, it's easy to imagine how the latter meaning would have evolved out of the original one.

That has to do with both words having different origins, a different etymology.

How do you know they have a different origin?
Or was that just a guess?