Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 3]


Abramelin
 Share

Recommended Posts

So after acknowledging that the paper is probably 19th century,

Why? Can you refer to any serious investigation with clear results? Its waterlines look just like the ones on Medieval Arabic (Spanish) paper.

the language is 19th century,

Because syntax is similar? But German and Dutch split long before the 19th century and also have similar syntax. Or do you have better arguments for this bold statement?

the manuscript has been out in the open in the 19th century, ...

The Dead Sea Scrolls are "out in the open" since the 20th century, but are dated from the last three centuries BCE.

And the examples that come to mind are 19the century, don't you think?

No.

(more replies later)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the language is 19th century

Let me remind you what celebrated 19th C. linguist Verwijs said about it:

1867 Oct. 13 - to C. Over de Linden (OdL)

"Part of it was quite easy to understand and, although seeming to be of younger age, not different from the language of the Oldfrisian laws from the 13th and 14th century. But there were also fragments, that I didn't and still don't understand and that will take much meticulous study, before I can clarify them."

1867 Oct. 16 - to OdL

"I really can't promise you the translation of a separate part, as there are difficulties in it, that may take weeks of study."

1869 Nov. 11 - to OdL

"Here and there translation is very easy and it can be done at first sight; but other parts contain difficulties, that take much time and study."

1869 Nov. 11 - to J. Winkler

"Here and there translation is easy, but there are also quite some difficulties and unknown words. I know that if I would start, I would not rest before I have solved them, and that way I would spend much too much time on it. [...] It's odd that it contains some very old words and that also the forms point at a previous linguistic era, while other expressions sound so very modern."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlantis was a known story before the 19th century, but the heated debates and the serious quest was really something of that era.

That was mostly after OLB became well known.

You really make a caricature of it.

And I think you lack a sense of logic.

(At high school, I remember, students who were bad at understanding and applying mathematics, tended to be good at believing and remembering history, and vice versa.)

But let's not go there and stick to the facts.

So every scientist that works on the OLB has to start from the bottom with evaluating the manuscript again?

I did not suggest that. But if their mentality is, to only look for confirmation of their assumed premise that OLB is fake, and to reject clues or facts that are in conflict with this, they can not be expected to provide answers to the question why OLB can not be authentic.

Van den Bossche, 2000 (Methodology, p.6):

"Eén van de uitgangspunten van het onderzoek is, dat Thet Oera Linda Bok een vervalsing is."

(One of the premises of the research is, that the OLB is a forgery.)

Jensma, 2004 (Introduction of chapter 3 on OLB-language, p.37):

"Welke technieken, welke strategieën en welke bedoeling hebben aan het scheppen van deze taal ten grondslag gelegen?"

(On what techniques, strategies and purpose was the creation of this language based?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my knowledge, we have no narrative source for the relevant question, that did the manuscript survive intact as such from the year 1256 to us, or has it been edited or re-written in the time between the 1256 and 1800s?

Correct me if I am wrong, Othar.

From what I gather, without at this moment investigating it in depth, Cornelis over de Linden sent copied parts of the manuscript to Eelco Verwijs.

Verwijs occupied himself for four years with these copies and claimed to not have translated them. He also asserted that some parts were easy to read and that other parts were incomprehensible.

After this Jan Gerhardus Ottema translated the text that he had available to him, and we all know - or can learn - what happened since.

So we know that at least one new copy existed: the one that Cornelis over de Linden made. Where is that copy? Where is the original document?

Cornelis over de Linden was not able to read the text. It is unlikely that for four years he sent Verwijs copies of parts of the manuscript without being reciprocated with translations of those parts. If he did get those from Verwijs, there must have been a translated manuscript extant as well. Where is it?

If Verwijs did translate the text, into what language(s) did he translate it? Perchance in the extant OLB text? In what handwriting did he write his translations? If in his own, did Cornelis over de Linden next transliterate it into the extant OLB script?

Something odd was going on during the Verwijs years, I suspect. Carbon dating of the manuscript can prove me wrong. If the paper is genuinely mediaeval, I am wrong. If it is nineteenth century paper I am most likely right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The authenticity is falsified before and there is consensus about that.

The conclusion of this one scholar (Beckering) and the consensus among a few later scholars can still be questioned and falsified. They may turn out to have been wrong. It often happens in science.

I don't blame scholars who build upon the conclusion of their predecessors, but if they don't question this earlier conclusion, they are not likely to find clues that are in conflict with it.

My position is, that the arguments to reject authenticity are feeble, including those by Beckering.

... you have to compare it with the old frisian we know

That is what expert De Haan Hettema, Dr. Ottema and Prof. Dr. Mausser did.

De Haan Hettema (5 sept. 1871) about the OLB:

"It was written in the Frisian language; I don't know a distinction between Old Frisian and Land- or Farmers-Frisian. I only know another and newer spelling of that language, because the pronunciation of Frisian is virtually the same as some ages ago, which was demonstrated by the world famous linguist the Danish prof. R. Rask in his Frisian grammar [...]

Concerning the spelling in this text, this in my opinion is much more in accordance with the older and very regular, and much better and regular than of those, who nowadays write that language;"

Linguist Dr. Otto Mausser (1883-1942) in letter to Wolfram Sievers (1905-1948), about lectures by Heyting and Overwijn:

"Besonders interessant war mir natürlich zu hören, dass auch die Holländer die Echtheit der Ura-L-Chronik nicht anzweifeln. Der Unterschied zwischen mir und ihnen ist nur der, dass ich genagelte Beweise erbringen kann."

(Most interesting was it for me to hear, that also the Dutch don't doubt OLB's authenticity. The only difference between them and me is, that I can provide hard evidence.)

Dr. Ottema: see "Vergelijkende Taalproeve" in 1st edition (between introduction and translation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly do you think is impossible?

To create an illusion of authenticity this sophisticated. I don't claim it is impossible, I just don't think it is, but I will not further discuss this opinion.

you seem to imply that the OLB-research only has focussed on the 'who done it'-question. Well, that simply isn't true. There is so much written about the internal and external factors of the OLB. By Jensma, the Jong, Beckering Vinckers, Breuker... As I said before: the quest for the creators starts after establishing that the OLB must be a 19th century creation.

I can not judge Breukers work. Since it does not seem to be available and it will probably be only (part of) a chapter, can you scan and share it?

As for Jensma and De Jong, their focus was indeed on who did it and why. Yes, they also search and find confirmation for their premise that it's fake, but none of that is hard evidence against authenticity. They do not first establish that it must be a 19th C. creation.

As for Beckering Vinckers, I don't see how anyone can actually take his work seriously. It is a highly emotional rave. Have you tried to summarise his main arguments yet? Have you read the answer by Leendert Floris Over de Linden to it? (Beweerd maar niet Bewezen, 1877)

A remarkable fact:

Great-granddaughter of Jan Beckering Vinckers (1821-1891; he got his double name by adding the family name of his mother to that of his father) felt bad about what her g-grandfather had done to the Over de Linden family:

corneliabeckering.jpg

Translated:

Dear Mr. Menkens! It was a wonderful surprise to receive your gift. I was very happy, to find out at the end of my existence, that it is granted to me, to somehow ablate the shame inflicted by my great-grandfather on the Over de Linden family. Thank you so much for this gift!! Many, many thanks, your Cornelia Woldt, born Beckering Vinckers, Neumünster.

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we know that at least one new copy existed: the one that Cornelis over de Linden made. Where is that copy? Where is the original document?

OdL's copy was on transparent paper (propabably kept at Tresoar).

There is no reason to doubt that the manuscript at Tresoar (from which I use scans) is the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abe, it's me. I don't need to reread Odyssey but maybe you do.

Your comments about Scheria and the land of Phaeacians in the North Sea are nonsense.

This is because This island is 18 days sail back to Ithaca direction, home.

Only Ogygia is. It's 9 days float from Charybdis but 19 days sail back to Scheria.

I know others have the Phaeacians concept around the North Sea but it doesn't work at all really. The closest I'd put it is maybe Lisbon or down to the Pillars. Maybe like Tartessos.

I only quoted what I found out about the Phaeacians and Scheria. I am not in the least convinced that the Phaeacians are our Fryans.

This thing started with someone (Eli?) saying he agreed with Alewyn's idea that the Phaeacians were Fryans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wars everywhere in Europe? What are you referring to here exactly?

No, it may not be mentioned in the OLB but it's interesting none the less, that it occurs around the same time as the Trojan War.

That's the problem with this thread: I have posted tomes about that period, links to scientific papers, but after a time everyone (conveniently?) forgets all about it.

I hope you still remember the link you yourself posted a week or so ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the problem with this thread: I have posted tomes about that period, links to scientific papers, but after a time everyone (conveniently?) forgets all about it.

I hope you still remember the link you yourself posted a week or so ago?

I had to Google, and on this page is something I posted a long time ago (and scroll down) :

http://www.unexplain...=227240&st=4050

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote about the Phaeacians in a recent update of my Smashwords e-book Aeneid Liber Sextus. In my opinion - conclusion - Odysseus, while asleep, was brought home by a high technology ship of the Underworld Phaeacians; i.e. by the pitch black people from the realm of the dead, a huge space habitat.

As for 'sekenning', might it perchance refer not to a king (kung), but instead to someone with knowledge (kenning) of the sea? I.e. a navigator.

In Scandinavian sagae a 'kenning' is a poetical concept that refers to another concept. For example, the kenning 'whale road' = the sea.

I hope you're not serious about that space habitat...

And the 'kening' (not kenning) in the OLB is obviously a titel (a king), not a poetical description (a kenNing) of something/someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you're not serious about that space habitat...

There is no doubt about it whatsoever. I have discussed it in all my mythology publications.

And the 'kening' (not kenning) in the OLB is obviously a titel (a king), not a poetical description (a kenNing) of something/someone.

You may be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another new online source (Dutch, PDF):

"De Schrijver van Thet Oera-Linda Bôk is NIET Cornelis Over de Linden, door Gerrit Jansen. Door Gerrit Jansen, corrector van C.O.'s nagelaten geschriften."

Author: Gerrit Jansen;

Publisher: Nieuwediep, Berkhout & Co. 1877

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Othar. I have read the document on Scribd, but could not download it - unless I agreed to a two week free membership.

Last year, because of my Smashwords publications I had one year of free memebership of Scribd, but did hardly use it (I downloaded two books and read neither, if I recall correctly). This year I was told that I would have to pay for membership, so I declined.

Edited by Ell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt about it whatsoever.

There is serious doubt, at least until you lay your arguments to back it up on the table.

Edited by Demiurg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Othar. I have read the document on Scribd, but could not download it - unless I agreed to a two week free membership.

I didn't know that, thanks for telling me. I will reload everything somewhere else soon. Is play.google.com/books a good option? Can anyone advise me?

Edited by Othar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Demiurg, it's great you brought up the mr. Breuker's book. Unfortunately I myself can't read Dutch and all of his books seem to be sold out in webshops. Could you please share one or more Breuker's comparisons between the Oera Linda book and the papers mr. Verwijs left behind? The way you describe mr. Breuker's work, he seems to have done a bit similar work to mine, thought he seems to have referred into 19th century sources and not earlier.

First, I think your search for links in older non-dutch mythology is very interesting. Even without deciding if the OLB is authentic or not, because in any case it's somehow containing medieval/ancient tales. Btw: Eelco Verwijs was also very interested in mythology, he also wrote a groundbreaking book on Sinterklaas.

About Breuker, i have emailed him this week to ask if he has some list of the books of Verwijs he studied; I was hoping for workfiles or something, but he told me he hasn't, but that in the University Library of Leiden, there are two inventories in which the books that Verwijs gave to the library are described. I'm not close to Leiden very soon, but if I will be, I'm look them up. I'm very interested to see what books Verwijs did look up in those days. As Breuker seems a bit (not strange) looking for the topics close to his own interest.

The topics that Breuker can link from Verwijs to the OLB are just a few. The most important link he works out is to a book called 'Altnordisches leben' van Weinhold (1856) I can give and translate quotes if you want. This is about runen and alphabets. he also mentions books of Verwijs about the Indo-European linguistic theory of the time.

While I can't answer for Othar, in my opinion it depends on the groundwork. If it's good and detailed, one could move on the more peripheral issues that have not yet been researched. To my foreign eyes it looks as if this is not at all the case with Oera Linda book, as the research so far seems to have focused on linquistics and possible 19th century literary loans, with very little or no attention given to comparing it to older sources or archeology.

Those older sources or archeology, you might have a point. About the rest. The linguistic comparison is done very well. And the outcome makes it so clear, really. I just read Beckering Vinckers again and it really nails it. In short: for a manuscript that has to be 13th century, it has to be done in the old frisian-variant. The grammatical cases and conjugations are used wrong all the time and only used when they look very old. There's also hardly any development in the different stages of the OLB, even if they should be written centurys apart.

Amongst whom there is this consensus? Do you mean Dutch academia of Tresoar and the universities?

The academia: I don't know any scholar these days who believes the OLB is what it says to be.

So, Jensma was sure that the studies before him had already compared enough the Oera Linda book to other classical and medieval sources?

Jensma evaluate the external factors like paper, writing, linguistics. His own researched focused on literary text analyses and also the struggle around the OLB in the late 19th century. He didn't research older mythology.

How do we "know" that the old Frisian that has survived represents the whole spectrum of Frisian dialects back at the day, and is not reflective of nth century?

We never know, ofcourse. You can only research what is left today. But we can compare with what we know about old frisian and we can also relate to other germanic languages, and they developed during the years. And we can compare with modern frisian and modern dutch, as the OLB-langauge behaves mostly like modern dutch.

In archeology exists a problem that Medieval paintings show quite a wide range of different arms and armour, yet only few types have survived to us. Most of the selection have been lost by the centuries in between, so it's an open question what gear was actually used back in the day. Are the paintings to be trusted, for they show some gear that has actually survived to our day? Could it be similar situation here, with Oera Linda book (or Old High German lullaby...) taking the place of the painting in the example?

Interesting analogy. But let's say we see a piece of armour at a painting that's not saved. You can see what the painter's intentions are and if he is trustworthy with the other equipment he's portrating. If his other gear is accurate with reality, than the one piece of gear that we don't know might have existed too. How trustworthy is the manuscript of the OLB?

Did Jensma, the Jong, Beckering Vinckers, Breuker and others compare the text to likes of Tacitus' Germania, Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Sturluson's Ynglinsaga, Guerber's Myths of the Norsemen, Tolkien's Finn and Hengest, Wiligut's Irminsaga and Bock's Väinämöinen's mythology?

Guess not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To create an illusion of authenticity this sophisticated. I don't claim it is impossible, I just don't think it is, but I will not further discuss this opinion.

It is not sophisticated. If it would be sophisticated it would be in real old frisian. In real medieval writing, on real medieval paper.

I can not judge Breukers work. Since it does not seem to be available and it will probably be only (part of) a chapter, can you scan and share it?

Sure. I'll send you a message somewhere this week.

As for Beckering Vinckers, I don't see how anyone can actually take his work seriously. It is a highly emotional rave.

His polemic style is quite amusing, in my opinion. But it doesn't prevent him for doing a real good job. His linguistic analysis is very detailed and to the point.

Have you tried to summarise his main arguments yet?

Very shortly.

Have you read the answer by Leendert Floris Over de Linden to it? (Beweerd maar niet Bewezen, 1877)

I haven't read yet. But I will.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw: Eelco Verwijs was also very interested in mythology, he also wrote a groundbreaking book on Sinterklaas.

That book is interesting indeed and I can recommend it to anyone - who understands Dutch - who wants to know something about the subject. I have quoted (part of) one line from it myself in my book about Zwarte Piet, as well as a handful of lines Ter Gouw wrote about it, as well as some text from another book written by Verwijs and someone else.

Edited by Ell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... it would be in real old frisian. In real medieval writing, on real medieval paper.

There is no good evidence that it is not. You think there is, I don't. Let's agree to disagree.

His linguistic analysis is very detailed and to the point.

Again, we disagree. In my opinion, it is based on a model which is based on questionable assumptions. For strong arguments against the validity of BV's conclusion, I refer to L.F. Over de Linden "Waarheid en Leugen" (1877).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short: for a manuscript that has to be 13th century, it has to be done in the old frisian-variant.

There was no standard, there must have been a huge variety. You keep ignoring De Haan Hettema's judgement. He had much more expertise than Beckering.

The grammatical cases and conjugations are used wrong all the time ...

Wrong from the point of view of (some) linguists who had created a model of how they assumed the standard would have been.

There's also hardly any development in the different stages of the OLB...

Similarly, this argument is based on an assumed model of (Darwinian style) evolution.

I don't know any scholar these days who believes the OLB is what it says to be.

Scholars are more interested in conforming to percieved consensus, than in truth.

Wannabe scholars are even worse in this regard.

Very few have actually investigated it themselves.

A reputation is fragile. The press has been harsh. That Prof. Dr. Anne J. Vitringa (1827-1901) in 1874 published his "Naar aanleiding van..." (in which he merely suggested that OLB might be authentic) anonymously, is telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.