Plato´s Atlantis was in a River Delta

[Unusual Tournament]

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

Yes we do.  That statement was ridiculous. 

  They came right off the Pontic-Caspian Steppe during the PIE (Yamnaya) separation, probably because of a plague and as war parties. The Indo-Europeans went in one direction, the Indo-Iranians in another and the Paleo-Balkan-Armenian/Hittite went straight down Southward. The Balto-Slavics stayed right in the Urheimat. 

The point you missed is that did the Greeks know of wine before they came to Greece or did they pick it up along the way. Did a God of wine replace a God of fermented wheat, Barley, Honey or even mares milk. Piney you’re just sadly reaching here.

[Piney]

5 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

The point you missed is that did the Greeks know of wine before they came to Greece or did they pick it up along the way. Did a God of wine replace a God of fermented wheat, Barley, Honey or even mares milk. Piney you’re just sadly reaching here.

They picked up wine in Anatolia when they were still Paleo-Bakans. The Paleo Balkans separated into the Greeks and Thracians,  and the Hittites became the Luwians (Trojans) and Armenians. They gained wine from the Anatolian Farmers who were related to the Basques and Corsicans and weren't PIE. 

I'm not reaching at all I studied the PIE migrations.  

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

They picked up wine in Anatolia when they were still Paleo-Bakans. The Paleo Balkans separated into the Greeks and Thracians,  and the Hittites became the Luwians (Trojans) and Armenians. They gained wine from the Anatolian Farmers who were related to the Basques and Corsicans and weren't PIE. 

I'm not reaching at all I studied the PIE migrations.  

 Not doubting you at all mate. Thanks for the interesting information. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Captain Risky

[Peter Cox]

On 9/21/2019 at 6:35 AM, Pettytalk said:

I will comment of this, and only from the basis to show that you are less than worthy to engage in anything Plato wrote.

Go ahead, through your own expertise in the matter, and without the help of your much smarter fiends, refute what I claim on Atlantis.

Here is your opportunity to contribute to the thread, instead of being only a rambunctious sideline fan for the allegorical team. As it stands,you are plainly and simply only parroting what others say, as you are less than a flying bird, but a bird nevertheless....a hen of the woods, in my book..

Easy:

1. Plato said Atlantis sunk under the waves - I can still see the Americans and know friends who lives there (so this makes America an impossible location) 

2. Plato writes of something that happened in the past using phrases like "In those days" - America was now known to the Greeks or the Egyptians until much much later in history (Meaning that they could not have written about a place that to them did not exist)  

3. America does not fit the size and descriptions - So Plato must have been wrong about that then

4. You can sail to America - Plato says you could not get to where is WAS (again showing it happens in the past and not the future) and we can still sail to America (Show me the Shoals) 

5. There is no record of America in any ancient Egyptian writing - How would Solon have got this from an Egyptian priest when we know how well Egypt documented their history    

6. Plato was not a fortune tell nor a profit so he did not write of things that would become fact, he wrote of analogies in the pursuit for knowledge - thus making the US Plato's Atlantis in the future a very absurd notion, 

Answer those first few and Ill then give you the other reasons based on fact and not faith.

Thank you PT 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Peter Cox

[+Pettytalk]

Well! It's simply not true that these Atlantis threads are useless and do not bring out anything new.

The threads on Atlantis serve as platforms for all the haughty and boisterous, mighty people of learning to showcase their many years spent in studying and writing history, and what have you. In other words, like in the military in the dress A uniforms, they wear all their medals and decorations on the chest. And as they parade down this forum's threads, each admiring the other's shining chest ware, give compliments to one another. 

Sometimes looks and images are deceiving, and it's hard to tell war heroes from paper-pushers.

 

 

[+Pettytalk]

7 hours ago, Swede said:

• Your inability to grasp the intent of the dialogues is truly puzzling, particularly for one who professes such "deep insight".
• Your attempts to infuse your personal interpretations (including deliberate alterations) are hardly convincing.

However, of greater significance: Your entire premise is based upon the concept that Plato was a "Christian Prophet" well before the referenced belief system was even established.

Kindly present your empirical evidence that: 1) Plato ever considered himself to be a "prophet"; 2) That Plato was somehow engaged in early Judaeo-Christian belief systems.

.

 

 

I'll respond in due time. But here is a thought for you, and it's in reference to the bold above. Time, although being just an illusion, goes in a straight line, in other words, a linear illusion. Since Socrates/Plato came down to earth before Christ, and the Christianity religion that followed, it's natural for Plato to be a "Christian" prophet, or rather, a disciple of Socrates, who was a prototype, and a precursor Christ-like figure. Additionally, many early Church fathers regarded Plato has a prophet. Here is just one source from where this can be seen, although my any means the only one. I picked the first that came up.on a search on Plato and Christianity. Ben Jowett's commentaries and translations of Plato makes note of it too, and he is not only commentator on Plato who does

Probably you are already aware of it, but I'll mention it. For the record, I'm NOT making a case here that Jowett, or other commentators on Plato,endorsed what the early Church fathers saw in Plato, or the Neo-platonists, as Jowett and other later commentators attributed it to misunderstanding Plato. I'm merely pointing out that Plato was already looked upon as a prophet a long way back by these ancient men of the early days of Christianity. And if everyone demanding physical evidence from me would just keep in mind that what I have always proposed on Atlantis is based on plausibility, and not on material evidence, whether on this thread or any other on Atlantis in which I have posted here.

Jowett: The influence with the Timaeus has exercised upon posterity is due partly to a misunderstanding. In the supposed depths of this dialogue the Neo-Platonists found hidden meanings and connections with the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and out of them they elicited doctrines quite at variance with the spirit of Plato. Believing that he was inspired by the Holy Ghost, or had received his wisdom from Moses, they seemed to find in his writings the Christian Trinity, the Word, the Church, the creation of the world in a Jewish sense, as they really found the personality of God or of mind, and the immortality of the soul.

Take It from the Church Fathers: You Should Read Plato

 

Christianity is the West’s most important worldview. Plato was the West’s most important philosopher. But the two have far more in common than just importance—in fact, Plato helped set the intellectual stage for the early church.

Dean Inge, the famous professor of divinity, writes that:

“Platonism is part of the vital structure of Christian theology . . . . [If people would read Plotinus, who worked to reconcile Platonism with Scripture,] they would understand better the real continuity between the old culture and the new religion, and they might realize the utter impossibility of excising Platonism from Christianity without tearing Christianity to pieces. The Galilean Gospel, as it proceeded from the lips of Jesus, was doubtless unaffected by Greek philosophy . . . . But [early Christianity] from its very beginning was formed by a confluence of Jewish and Hellenic religious ideas.” (Emphasis added)

If you’re interested in Christianity’s origins, there are some very good reasons to be interested in Platonism:

 

https://blog.logos.com/2013/11/plato-christianity-church-fathers/

 

Was Socrates a Prophet? Similarities between Socrates and Jesus Christ.

https://esmancientgreeks.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/was-socrates-a-prophet-similarities-between-socrates-and-jesus-christ/

[atalante]

19 hours ago, Swede said:

Bury's translation was published in 1929. His comments reflect his personal beliefs based upon cultural "speculations " of the time period.

.

The Bury translation of Tim 26e was (and still is) a fairly accurate treatment of Plato's Tim 26e.
 

If you check modern translations for Proclus's commentary on Timaeus 26e, you will see that Plato intended to tell his audience, in Tim 26e, that the Atlantis theme was not a fable, but instead was intended as a "true account", or "genuine history" ( alēthinon logon)  Judging from writer-names in the Proclus commentary, the first writer who regarded Plato's Atlantis theme as an allegory was Numenius, ca. 175 AD.

 

In the LSJ lexicon of Classical Greek, Plato's usage of "logos" in Tim 26e is presented as:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlo%2Fgos

logos, V.3. .... in Pl(ato)., opp(osite of) muthos, as history to legend, Ti.26e;

 

Herodotus's "history" was also a "logos", as pointed out in the same place - LSJ, logos V.3.

[Piney]

10 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Was Socrates a Prophet? Similarities between Socrates and Jesus Christ.

You can compare many Teachers of Right with Jesus Christ. Kukai, Thich Nhat Hanh, Lao Tzu, Huiguo.  A Teacher of Right doesn't have to be divinely inspired. Just have a certain perception.

Also, contrary to the opinion of this music blogger, who does not have a background in theology. The definition of a prophet is someone who has prescience, and Socrates never claimed that. 

[jaylemurph]

1 hour ago, atalante said:

The Bury translation of Tim 26e was (and still is) a fairly accurate treatment of Plato's Tim 26e.

Considering you don't know Ancient Greek, I'm curious how you can personally evaluate translations of it.

--Jaylemurph

[cormac mac airt]

35 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Considering you don't know Ancient Greek, I'm curious how you can personally evaluate translations of it.

--Jaylemurph

Some offshoot of lego-linguistics perhaps?

cormac

[Swede]

12 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

I'll respond in due time. But here is a thought for you, and it's in reference to the bold above.

You are failing to support your contention. That later authors,Christian or otherwise, appreciated Plato's philosophical perspectives does not equate to prophecy. More extraneous rambling does not an argument make. And you have failed to address the previous matters as repeated below:

Kindly present your empirical evidence that: 1) Plato ever considered himself to be a "prophet"; 2) That Plato was somehow directly engaged in early Judaeo-Christian belief systems.

.

[Swede]

2 hours ago, atalante said:

The Bury translation of Tim 26e was (and still is) a fairly accurate treatment of Plato's Tim 26e.

Am not, at the moment, debating the accuracy of Bury's translation per se, but Bury's editorializing, which appears to reflect certain sentiments of the time period. Bear in mind that we are rather shortly on the heels of Schliemann and the associated marketing/repercussions. It should also be noted that Tim 26e is contradicted by other sections of Tim as already presented by Cormac.

.

[Piney]

14 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

The threads on Atlantis serve as platforms for all the haughty and boisterous, mighty people of learning to showcase their many years spent in studying and writing history, and what have you. In other words, like in the military in the dress A uniforms, they wear all their medals and decorations on the chest. And as they parade down this forum's threads, each admiring the other's shining chest ware, give compliments to one another. 

Wow, jealous of the academics because you were too lazy to do the work yourself? 

Speaking of decorations, where's yours "veteran"? 

[docyabut2]

 Plato may have the same nation in mind for he names the second Atlantean king Gadeiros after a famous Phoenician colony near the Straits of Gibraltar.

 

 http://polatkaya.net/PHOENICIAN CITY OF GADES Part 2.htm

 above are two islands on which ancient Phoenicians founded their city of GADIR

 

a island of Gades

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

They are not described as  islands off the coast of Africa,  but off the coast of Spain . Atlantis facing that small island Gades Gadir 

Edited September 24, 2019 by docyabut2

[cormac mac airt]

17 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

They are not described as islands off the coast of Africa,  but off the coast of Spain . Atlantis facing that small island Gades Gadir 

That's because there are NO islands off the coast of Africa in that area, nor have there been in the past. And that's taking into account that the earliest reference to Gades/Gadeira/Cadiz is Phoenician in origin even though the Phoenicians ALSO had settlements on the African Coast. 

cormac

[atalante]

22 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Considering you don't know Ancient Greek, I'm curious how you can personally evaluate translations of it [Tim 26e].

--Jaylemurph

Jay,

Can you prove that any writer BEFORE Numenius claimed that Plato's Atlantis theme was an allegory?  If you can't prove major earlier allegory enthusiasts -- then Harold Tarrant's modern commentary on Proclus is the best explanation for how the Atlantis theme was received and understood by Greco-Romans, during the first eight centuries after Plato wrote his Atlantis theme.https://www.amazon.com/Proclus-Commentary-Timaeus-Harold-Tarrant/dp/052117399X

 

*  Proclus (via Harold Tarrant's commentary) shows that literal readings of the Atlantis theme were dominant from the time of Crantor (ca 285 BC) until the grammarian Longinus (ca 250 CE).  But two allegory-Atlantis explanations rose, from obscurity to prominence, during the era from Numenius (ca 175 CE) to Porphyry (ca 275 CE).

*  Then a synthesis (between allegory and literal meanings for the Atlantis theme) occurred, a synthesis which was supported by Iamblicus, Surianus and Proclus.  According to Proclus, the synthesis involved recognizing that contradictions in the Atlantis storyline are similar to the contradictions that occur in everyday life.  Thus contradictions in the (literal) Atlantis storyline do not mean that Plato "intended" the Atlantis theme to be purely allegorical.

*  According to Proclus (via Tarrant commentary) -- the two early allegory-explanations for Atlantis were:   1) a conflict between human souls vs. demons in the far west that destroy human souls (represented by Numenius, Origen, Porphyry); and 2) a conflict in the sky between planets vs fixed stars (represented by Amelius).

Presumably no other Atlantis-allegory was preferred in the first eight centuries after Plato wrote his Atlantis dialogues - other than the two styles of Atlantis-allegory that Proclus reported.

 

moving forward from Proclus, to the present topic:

Captain Risky's post #637 resembles the synthesis, discussed above, by Iamblicus-Surianus-Porphry.  i.e Plato wrote using the best info available at his time.

Cormac's post #766 quoted Tim 25d-26d out of context (i.e. improperly), by leaving off Plato's 26e concluding statements for that passage.  Cormac is violating the way Plato's Atlantis theme was understood in the first 5 centuries centuries after Plato (i.e. before Numenius 175 CE).

Pettytalk's post #767 discussed Plato's complete passage Tim 25d-26e - thus showing that Cormac misunderstands Plato's intention in 25d-26e.

 

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

8 minutes ago, atalante said:

Jay,

Can you prove that any writer BEFORE Numenius claimed that Plato's Atlantis theme was an allegory?  If you can't prove major earlier allegory enthusiasts -- then Harold Tarrant's modern commentary on Proclus is the best explanation for how the Atlantis theme was received and understood by Greco-Romans, during the first eight centuries after Plato wrote his Atlantis theme.https://www.amazon.com/Proclus-Commentary-Timaeus-Harold-Tarrant/dp/052117399X

 

*  Proclus (via Harold Tarrant's commentary) shows that literal readings of the Atlantis theme were dominant from the time of Crantor (ca 285 BC) until the grammarian Longinus (ca 250 CE).  But two allegory-Atlantis explanations rose, from obscurity to prominence, during the era from Numenius (ca 175 CE) to Porphyry (ca 275 CE).

*  Then a synthesis (between allegory and literal meanings for the Atlantis theme) occurred, a synthesis which was supported by Iamblicus, Surianus and Proclus.  According to Proclus, the synthesis involved recognizing that contradictions in the Atlantis storyline are similar to the contradictions that occur in everyday life.  Thus contradictions in the (literal) Atlantis storyline do not mean that Plato "intended" the Atlantis theme to be purely allegorical.

*  According to Proclus (via Tarrant commentary) -- the two early allegory-explanations for Atlantis were:   1) a conflict between human souls vs. demons in the far west that destroy human souls (represented by Numenius, Origen, Porphyry); and 2) a conflict in the sky between planets vs fixed stars (represented by Amelius).

Presumably no other Atlantis-allegory was preferred in the first eight centuries after Plato wrote his Atlantis dialogues - other than the two styles of Atlantis-allegory that Proclus reported.

 

moving forward from Proclus, to the present topic:

Captain Risky's post #637 resembles the synthesis, discussed above, by Iamblicus-Surianus-Porphry.  i.e Plato wrote using the best info available at his time.

Cormac's post #766 quoted Tim 25d-26d out of context (i.e. improperly), by leaving off Plato's 26e concluding statements for that passage.  Cormac is violating the way Plato's Atlantis theme was understood in the first 5 centuries centuries after Plato (i.e. before Numenius 175 CE).

Pettytalk's post #767 discussed Plato's complete passage Tim 25d-26e - thus showing that Cormac misunderstands Plato's intention in 25d-26e.

Your attempt to validate as fact what is effectively presented as a "true fiction" is disingenuous at best, particularly since if it is "genuine history" as Plato's Socrates claims then it is so AS PLATO WROTE IT, which means any attempt to reinterpret what Plato wrote IS A LIE ON YOUR PART. So, either take responsibility for said lie or, better yet, quit pretending to be relevant by reinterpreting what Plato said. He said it, so deal with it. 

cormac

[jaylemurph]

4 hours ago, atalante said:

Jay,

Can you prove that any writer BEFORE Numenius claimed that Plato's Atlantis theme was an allegory?  If you can't prove major earlier allegory enthusiasts -- then Harold Tarrant's modern commentary on Proclus is the best explanation for how the Atlantis theme was received and understood by Greco-Romans, during the first eight centuries after Plato wrote his Atlantis theme.https://www.amazon.com/Proclus-Commentary-Timaeus-Harold-Tarrant/dp/052117399X

 

*  Proclus (via Harold Tarrant's commentary) shows that literal readings of the Atlantis theme were dominant from the time of Crantor (ca 285 BC) until the grammarian Longinus (ca 250 CE).  But two allegory-Atlantis explanations rose, from obscurity to prominence, during the era from Numenius (ca 175 CE) to Porphyry (ca 275 CE).

*  Then a synthesis (between allegory and literal meanings for the Atlantis theme) occurred, a synthesis which was supported by Iamblicus, Surianus and Proclus.  According to Proclus, the synthesis involved recognizing that contradictions in the Atlantis storyline are similar to the contradictions that occur in everyday life.  Thus contradictions in the (literal) Atlantis storyline do not mean that Plato "intended" the Atlantis theme to be purely allegorical.

*  According to Proclus (via Tarrant commentary) -- the two early allegory-explanations for Atlantis were:   1) a conflict between human souls vs. demons in the far west that destroy human souls (represented by Numenius, Origen, Porphyry); and 2) a conflict in the sky between planets vs fixed stars (represented by Amelius).

Presumably no other Atlantis-allegory was preferred in the first eight centuries after Plato wrote his Atlantis dialogues - other than the two styles of Atlantis-allegory that Proclus reported.

 

moving forward from Proclus, to the present topic:

Captain Risky's post #637 resembles the synthesis, discussed above, by Iamblicus-Surianus-Porphry.  i.e Plato wrote using the best info available at his time.

Cormac's post #766 quoted Tim 25d-26d out of context (i.e. improperly), by leaving off Plato's 26e concluding statements for that passage.  Cormac is violating the way Plato's Atlantis theme was understood in the first 5 centuries centuries after Plato (i.e. before Numenius 175 CE).

Pettytalk's post #767 discussed Plato's complete passage Tim 25d-26e - thus showing that Cormac misunderstands Plato's intention in 25d-26e.

 

 

 

That’s well without the purpose and remit of my comment. You don’t know Ancient Greek and therefore cannot reasonably comment on its translation. 

Any other response — yours above not excluded — is deliberate avoidance. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Trelane]

I would like @atalante to provide some hard evidence of the fictional location's existence. Art, weapons, structures, boats, pottery, anything. Such an advanced civilization would have left traces other than this one and only entry by Plato.

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

I would like @atalante to provide some hard evidence of the fictional location's existence. Art, weapons, structures, boats, pottery, anything. Such an advanced civilization would have left traces other than this one and only entry by Plato.

I was thinking that.

Linguistic, mythological, genetic and archaeological evidence would be nicer than just arguing semantics about what Plato said.

[Hanslune]

45 minutes ago, Piney said:

I was thinking that.

Linguistic, mythological, genetic and archaeological evidence would be nicer than just arguing semantics about what Plato said.

....no one asks to see angel dancing on the head of pin - the believers know there is no physical evidence so what you get is never ending recycling of the same claims  - with an endless parade of charlatans stepping up to tell us that Plato was right about Atlantis BUT all his facts were wrong and they have to change the meaning of everything he wrote so 'x' place is where it was......

Its a sad play played out on scores of websites in a never ending waste of time and effort.

[atalante]

16 hours ago, Piney said:

I was thinking that.

Linguistic, mythological, genetic and archaeological evidence would be nicer than just arguing semantics about what Plato said.

Piney,

The archaeological and Egyptian mythological evidence converges in Theban Tomb 33 (TT33).

It should be recalled that BEFORE the time of (Greek) Proclus there was no "allegory" about a wealthy-but-corrupt-Atlantis vs a poor-but-noble-Athens.

What did exist BEFORE Proclus was the theme epitomized by Porphyry (and in similar but lessor measure, represented also by Numenius and Origen) - that Plato's Atlantis theme was about Egyptian demons in the far west, which destroy human souls. 

At the time of Solon - and also at the time of Critias and Plato - Theban Tomb 33 was an Egyptian museum open to the Egyptian public (but especially, open to Egyptian priests), which displayed on its walls copies of:  Egypt's Book of Amduat; Book of Gates; and Book of the Dead.   Solon's Egyptian priest says that "actual writings" (Tim 24a) can be consulted and studied.  This alludes to copies of sacred texts on the walls of Padiamenope's funerary palace, now called Theban Tomb 33 (TT33), which was  described in detail by its curator Claude Traunecker.  

www.academia.edu/22349513/Avec_Cl._Traunecker_The_Funerary_Palace_of_Padiamenope_at_Thebes_Egyptian_Archaeology_43_2013_p._32-34 

 Padiamenope was a chief lector priest of Thebes during the end of the 25th dynasty and the beginning of the (Saite) 26th dynasty.  This funerary palace was constructed ca 650 BC.  This tomb, or funerary palace, included a public library with a group of famous ancient Egyptian texts displayed on its walls.  The texts on these walls included:  Book of Amduat; Book of Caverns; Book of Gates; and Book of the Dead.

Edited September 25, 2019 by atalante

[jaylemurph]

2 minutes ago, atalante said:

Piney,

The archaeological and Egyptian mythological evidence converges in Theban Tomb 33 (TT33).

It should be recalled that BEFORE the time of (Greek) Proclus there was no "allegory" about a wealthy-but-corrupt-Atlantis vs a poor-but-noble-Athens.

What did exist BEFORE Proclus was the theme epitomized by Porphyry (and in similar but lessor measure, represented also by Numenius and Origen) - that Plato's Atlantis theme was about Egyptian demons in the far west, which destroy human souls. 

At the time of Solon - and also at the time of Critias and Plato - Theban Tomb 33 was an Egyptian museum open to the Egyptian public (but especially, open to Egyptian priests), which displayed on its walls copies of:  Egypt's Book of Amduat; Book of Gates; and Book of the Dead.   Solon's Egyptian priest says that "actual writings" (Tim 24a) can be consulted and studied.  This alludes to copies of sacred texts on the walls of Padiamenope's funerary palace, now called Theban Tomb 33 (TT33), which was  described in detail by its curator Claude Traunecker.  

www.academia.edu/22349513/Avec_Cl._Traunecker_The_Funerary_Palace_of_Padiamenope_at_Thebes_Egyptian_Archaeology_43_2013_p._32-34   Padiamenope was a chief lector priest of Thebes during the end of the 25th dynasty and the beginning of the (Saite) 26th dynasty.  This funerary palace was constructed ca 650 BC.  This tomb, or funerary palace, included a public library with a group of famous ancient Egyptian texts displayed on its walls.  The texts on these walls included:  Book of Amduat; Book of Caverns; Book of Gates; and Book of the Dead.

Again, do you think we just don’t notice when you massively dodge explicit questions?

If these texts support your “theory,” you should produce the relevant material. All you’ve done is prove somebody wrote something in a tomb, not that that writing has /any/ relevance to your point. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Piney]

11 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

If these texts support your “theory,” you should produce the relevant material. All you’ve done is prove somebody wrote something in a tomb, not that that writing has /any/ relevance to your point. 

 

That's what it looked like to me. I would like @Kenemet's opinion on what is actually written on these walls but she's loaded up and might not answer for a while.