Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[Knul]

Does it indicate clear signs of inauthenticity?

A discussion with you about the authenticity of the OLB is only possible when you show up with characteristics, which indicate or proof the authenticity of the OLB.

[Knul]

What is your source for this?

It may also be, that Ottema was in fact murdered.

Nonsens.

[Knul]

What is your source for this?

"E. Stadermann"

If Stadermann translated it in (a reconstruction of) Oldfrisian that fooled specialists like Ottema and De Haan Hettema, he must have been a genius. Where and how did he study to be able to do this? Why was no other trace of his talent found anywhere? He could have become very famous with it.

Apparently you know little about E. Stadermann.

[Knul]

What is your source for this?

The correspondence between Over de Linden and Ottema (in your possession). I'll trace back.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Knul

[Knul]

"Dr. J.H. Halbertsma"

If he wrote it, he must have done a hell of a lot of research, and used as many sources.

I fully agree. He published about his OLB related research in the Overijsselsche Almanak 1836-1845. You can read most of the annual issues on internet. He also used information of other contributors to the Overijsselsche Almanak, e.g. the description of the Hunenborg and the relation with the Magjaren.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Knul

[Ott]

... when you show up with characteristics, which indicate or proof the authenticity of the OLB.

The onus probandi (dutch: bewijslast) lies with those who claim that OLB is not authentic.

A suspect should be considered innocent until his guilt is proven.

Likewise, OLB should be considered (at least possibly) authentic, as long as it is not proven to be fake.

Edited October 29, 2013 by gestur

[Ott]

You said:

"It may well be, that Ottema at the end found that he was wrong and therefore committed suicide."

Then I said:

"It may also be, that Ottema was in fact murdered."

Nonsens.

If you speculate, I can do so too.

Can we be absolutely certain that he was not murdered?

No.

[Ott]

Apparently you know little about E. Stadermann.

That is no answer.

I asked:

Where and how did he study to be able to do this?

Why was no other trace of his talent found anywhere?

I challenge you to translate something well known and simple (like the "our father" prayer) into the OLB language.

You will have to agree that it is not easy.

How could a Stadermann have created these 190 pages?

It is just utterly unlikely.

[Ott]

The correspondence between Over de Linden and Ottema (in your possession). I'll trace back.

I brought some of my sources to where I am now, but not that.

Thanks in advance for posting that.

[Ott]

He published about his OLB related research in the Overijsselsche Almanak 1836-1845. You can read most of the annual issues on internet.

Why would he have kept his supposed work on the OLB a total secret?

Why did he not include anything about his beloved Hindeloopen?

That would have provided for some nice typical OLB-style 'folk'-etymology.

[Knul]

The onus probandi (dutch: bewijslast) lies with those who claim that OLB is not authentic.

A suspect should be considered innocent until his guilt is proven.

Likewise, OLB should be considered (at least possibly) authentic, as long as it is not proven to be fake.

It's very weak to hide yourself behind the believe of Ottema, that the OLB is authentic and to deny strong evidence, that it is not.

[Ott]

It's very weak to hide yourself behind the believe of Ottema, that the OLB is authentic and to deny strong evidence, that it is not.

What do you mean with "hide behind"?

It was not only Ottema who believed in the authenticity.

I don´t simply believe Ottema, but have studied many later publications and done my own investigations into the language.

What you see as strong evidence, to me is no evidence at all.

Just for the record, can you summarise that "strong evidence" once more, so the other readers can judge it too?

[Ott]

The following fragment is exemplary for the rhetoric that OLB-´skeptics´ use, when they deal with the question of authenticity.

From: "De auteur van het Oera-Linda-Boek" ("the author of the OLB") by Mr. P.C.J.A. Boeles (1928)

Note: The author´s academic title "mr." indicates, that he studied law and in his publication he claims to finally write a juridically sound analysis, which - as the fragment illustrates - is hilarious.

"Furthermore it was mainly historians and literati, who wrote about the OLB. Their observations and expert opinions are often of paramount importance, if one wants to get an impression of the nature of the OLB itself. It has been conclusively shown by them, that the OLB is not really an old manuscript, but a product of the second half of the last century."

Original dutch text:

"Voorts waren het voornamelijk historici en literatoren, die over het O.L.B. schreven. Hunne beschouwingen en deskundige adviezen zijn dikwijls van het hoogste belang, wanneer men een indruk wil krijgen van den aard van het O.L.B. zelf. Onomstotelijk is door hen aangetoond, dat het O.L.B. geen werkelijk oud handschrift is, maar een product uit de tweede helft der vorige eeuw."

Subsequently, the author does not refer to any of these alleged specialists or their supposed conclusive evidence. The reader just has to believe him, but can not check for him- or herself.

[Knul]

Just for the record, can you summarise that "strong evidence" once more, so the other readers can judge it too?

Other readers can find the arguments in my website http://www.rodinbook...alindaboek.html .

Edited October 29, 2013 by Knul

[Ott]

Other readers can find the arguments in my website http://www.rodinbook...alindaboek.html .

Your (dutch language only) site starts with (my translation):

"The mystification concerns the text of the OLB, made in would-be Oldfisian, ..."

So it starts with the assumption that it is fake, without giving any arguments why it cannot be authentic.

[Ott]

Even Cornelis over de Linden started to disbelieve the authenticity of the OLB but was then convinced by Ottema that the OLB was authentic.

Now I remember.

Cornelis started having doubts about the authenticity, but not about the fact that he had obtained it in 1848 (from his family in Enkhuizen) and about what his grandfather had told him in his childhood (about ancient Frisian descent).

He was convinced by Ottema´s explanation concerning the Swiss Polehouses.

Edited October 29, 2013 by gestur

[Knul]

Now I remember.

Cornelis started having doubts about the authenticity, but not about the fact that he had obtained it in 1848 (from his family in Enkhuizen) and about what his grandfather had told him in his childhood (about ancient Frisian descent).

He was convinced by Ottema´s explanation concerning the Swiss Polehouses.

Right. Could you please translate the two letters for us ?

[Knul]

Your (dutch language only) site starts with (my translation):

"The mystification concerns the text of the OLB, made in would-be Oldfisian, ..."

So it starts with the assumption that it is fake, without giving any arguments why it cannot be authentic.

So, you do not read further than the first line. Is that what you advise your readers of Fry-skednis ?

Edited October 29, 2013 by Knul

[Ott]

Right. Could you please translate the two letters for us ?

Can you give me the dates?

Perhaps I already did.

Here are some I translated before: fryskednis/letters-ottema-over-de-linden

If I have not translated them, I will be happy to.

But my copies are in Westfriesland, while I am in Germany now.

So if you can mail or post the dutch versions, I will do it.

Edited October 30, 2013 by gestur

[Ott]

So, you do not read further than the first line.

I browsed the whole page but didn´t find any argument.

Did you ever ask yourself the question: Could the manuscript in fact be authentic? Is there any good reason why it definately can´t?

But maybe I have indeed missed your arguments.

If you post them in dutch here, I will translate them for you.

[Ott]

That Cornelis at some point (when various scolars had claimed OLB to be definately fake) doubted the authenticity, and that it might have been, for example, created by one of his ancestors, only proves that he had a healthy, open mind.

Going through the letters I translated before again, I read this and think it is good to repost it:

Cornelis Over de Linden to Dr. Ottema, 16-11-1871:

I don't have the slightest doubts that one day the truth will come float to the surface,

but now that I have studied your translation, I figure that the laws described in it

are very radical, and that when the theology it teaches would become that of the people again,

all sorts of clergymen would have to find a new job.

That is why I think they will oppose it as much as is in their power.

[Ott]

Another important fragment:

Dr. Ottema to L.F. Over de Linden, 17-3-1876:

But always remember, that no-one can measure the spirit of the book,

who does not completely understand the language,

and can observe and consider all nuances in variety of language form,

spelling, and style in all parts that are collected in the book.

[Ott]

And this:

Dr. Ottema to L.F. Over de Linden, 24-06-1876:

I wish someone would act who is courageous enough

to defend the OLB in public, without fear for the systematic intimidation.

Because all the howling is intimidation, started by Spectator magazine

and systematically sustained.

There are enough proponents, but they dare not speak,

out of fear of being declared fool or villain.

[Ott]

Does anyone know if "De Frisiorum Antiquitate" (1590) by Suffridus Petrus (written in Latin) was ever translated into Dutch, English or German?

The following is most relevant IMO (and my Latin is not good enough):

Dr. Ottema to L.F. Over de Linden, 19-05-1877:

Concerning the manuscript it is important, specially because Suffridus Petrus, de Scriptoribus Frisiae mentions in his introduction, that Friso left several writings, one of them a travel diary and biography; that he had written them in the Frisian language and with Greek characters, and that his successors wrote just like that, until the times that the Roman script became current in Germania.

He did not mention how or where he had learned about that (as was not his habit), but he can not have sucked that out of his thumb.

Something must have come to his knowledge of Frisian notes, from the times in which the Ovira Lindas wrote, and that travel diary (about the journey from India to Friesland) may be related to Ljudgert's diary.

Informations like this from Suffridus used to be considered as fabulations, but among those fabulations there may turn out to be more truth than was presumed. It is also acknowledged that Suffridus Petrus never lied, but that he would have copied from earlier sources.

[Knul]

Does anyone know if "De Frisiorum Antiquitate" (1590) by Suffridus Petrus (written in Latin) was ever translated into Dutch, English or German?

The following is most relevant IMO (and my Latin is not good enough):

Dr. Ottema to L.F. Over de Linden, 19-05-1877:

Concerning the manuscript it is important, specially because Suffridus Petrus, de Scriptoribus Frisiae mentions in his introduction, that Friso left several writings, one of them a travel diary and biography; that he had written them in the Frisian language and with Greek characters, and that his successors wrote just like that, until the times that the Roman script became current in Germania.

He did not mention how or where he had learned about that (as was not his habit), but he can not have sucked that out of his thumb.

Something must have come to his knowledge of Frisian notes, from the times in which the Ovira Lindas wrote, and that travel diary (about the journey from India to Friesland) may be related to Ljudgert's diary.

Informations like this from Suffridus used to be considered as fabulations, but among those fabulations there may turn out to be more truth than was presumed. It is also acknowledged that Suffridus Petrus never lied, but that he would have copied from earlier sources.

De Frisiorum antiquitate et origine libri tres. Coloniae 1590, 12°, (10). Dit is het bekende werk, waarmede Suffridus de verdediging op zich nam der echtheid en geloofwaardigheid van Solko Forteman, Cappidus, Ocko van Scarl, Vlij tarp en andere Fiiesche zoogenoeuide geschiedschrijvers, over welke wij in de inleiding ons gevoelen geuit hebben. Zeker konden deze schrijvers, en de labelen welke zij mededeelden, geenen ijveriger en geleerder verdediger vinden, dan Suffridus getoond heeft te zijn. Intusschen is het te verwonderen, dat hij zijne vlijt en geleerdheid heeft kunnen en willen te koste leggen aan het geloof baar maken van verhalen, welke zoo zeer tegen alles aanloopen, wat ons uit alle andere echte schrijvers , omtrent de vroegste gesteldheid dezer landen en derzelver bewoners bekend is , dat geen onbevooroordeelde dezelve kan aannemen , zonder tevens Cesar, Tacitus, Strabo, Plinius en honderd dergelijke schrijvers meer, voor logenaars of weetnieten te verklaren. (Bibliotheek der Nederlandse Geschiedschrijvers).

More interesting is Worp van Thabor, who describes the same as Suffridus Petrus. According to me it is not by accident, that Cornelis over de Linden obtained the two books (OLB and Worp) together from his aunt Aafje.