The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:13 am

Grey Cloud wrote:Soundwaves and the Big Bang in the Poetic Edda - Hidden Knowledge in Old Norse Myths pt.1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evE6aLg ... JRZB8Z1qSa
Just started watching these. Seems like a very clever lady.

Yes, I´ve bought her book, "The Seeds of Yggdrasil" and watched all her videos too. She is excellent on the etymology of the ancient Norse language.

In my mind though, she kind of restricts her interpretations to "the pshycological realms", but I can anyway use her etymologic explanations mytho-cosmologically, which Maria Kvilhaug and I´ve agreed to disagree about :-)
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:01 am

Norman wrote:
Grey Cloud wrote:Soundwaves and the Big Bang in the Poetic Edda - Hidden Knowledge in Old Norse Myths pt.1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evE6aLg ... JRZB8Z1qSa
Just started watching these. Seems like a very clever lady.

Yes, I´ve bought her book, "The Seeds of Yggdrasil" and watched all her videos too. She is excellent on the etymology of the ancient Norse language.

In my mind though, she kind of restricts her interpretations to "the pshycological realms", but I can anyway use her etymologic explanations mytho-cosmologically, which Maria Kvilhaug and I´ve agreed to disagree about :-)


This lady is awesome. She could just as well be talking about Homer and the Greeks.
I think you are mistaken about the psychological aspect. (Physical) Humans are just chemistry and psychology, the interaction between the two dictates the kind of person/personality you are. Psychology is also the gateway or border between the sensible and the intelligible worlds (in the Platonic sense of the terms). 'Know thyself', alchemy, yoga, meditation, contemplation, initiation, etc. are all aimed at changing one's mindset or psychology.

If I was to be super-critical of the lady I would suggest that she, like most others, struggles to maintain a top-down perspective rather than a bottom-up perspective. e.g. she states that thse people lived in a world where death was never far away and so constucted an after-life where everything was rosy*. That is a bottom-up perspective. These people had a metaphysical view which said everything is one therefore death isn't such a big deal. This is a top-down perspective.
* They could just as easily viewed death like the modern atheists do - you die and that's that.

Also, the lady is trying to keep her theory within the confines of academic acceptability. She is not an Internet whacko.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun May 07, 2017 9:53 am

Has the Sun always been our stellar parent? It’s been known for well over 150 years that astronomers of the ancient Near East identified the planet Saturn as “the sun.” That preposterous language is an open invitation to an investigation.
This quote is classic Talbott - a statement made without any evidence. My guess would be that once upon a time Talbott came across something that could or might suggest this in a book which is over 150 years old. In other words, in a book written in the 19th century when the relevant disciplines were in their infancy. Also, there is a big difference between 'as the sun' and 'with the sun'.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby David Talbott » Sun May 07, 2017 2:58 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:
Has the Sun always been our stellar parent? It’s been known for well over 150 years that astronomers of the ancient Near East identified the planet Saturn as “the sun.” That preposterous language is an open invitation to an investigation.
This quote is classic Talbott - a statement made without any evidence. My guess would be that once upon a time Talbott came across something that could or might suggest this in a book which is over 150 years old. In other words, in a book written in the 19th century when the relevant disciplines were in their infancy. Also, there is a big difference between 'as the sun' and 'with the sun'.


Grey Cloud, I don't know where you've been all these years, but references have been given a hundred times. The first requirement of a critic is to go to the original sources. See the chapter on "The Polar Sun" in The Saturn Myth, pp. 37ff. You'll see 114 citations, and that's just one chapter. The entire book is a confirmation of the underlying idea, as are the subsequent articles in the journal AEON and also the articles in the THOTh newsletter.

Then, more recently, there are the 28 episodes of Symbols of an Alien Sky. If you want to be taken seriously as a critic, the first thing to discover for yourself is why readers and viewers of our documentaries have, to an extraordinary degree, affirmed the persuasiveness of the cited evidence. Perhaps you could check in with a few of the 1.3 million viewers of Symbols of an Alien Sky. Or the million or so viewers of the documentary Thunderbolts of the Gods. Or the more recently-published Remembering the End of the World. Then ask yourself why, despite the highly unconventional thesis presented, in every instance the vast majority (by AT LEAST 10 to 1, sometimes 30 to 1 or more) find the evidence given to be persuasive. With this consideration in mind, I can't help but wonder if you or that strange fellow "Norman" actually believe you've met that first test.

And just to be bit more blunt, could anyone in his right mind convince himself that our early ancestors, by looking out at the uneventful Milky Way, were provoked to formulate the vast tapestry of mythic archetypes? The only word for that would be "insanity."
David Talbott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby moses » Sun May 07, 2017 8:28 pm

Actually I dabble with the idea of galactic superwaves, and the story one would look for is the centre of the galaxy lighting up and then the light spreading out away from the centre as stars are bursting into increased activity. So the ancients would have seen the Milky Way get much brighter in a very distinctive way. Also the superwave probably caused planetary issues in the Solar System which would naturally be associated with the brighter Milky Way.

Superwaves are actually a part of our electric universe as a good percentage of galaxies have such superwaves, and the superwave would be formed electrically, perhaps as a surge. So for us it is a matter of determining if the core of the Milky Way does have electrical surges or explosions.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby David Talbott » Mon May 08, 2017 6:56 am

moses wrote:Actually I dabble with the idea of galactic superwaves, and the story one would look for is the centre of the galaxy lighting up and then the light spreading out away from the centre as stars are bursting into increased activity. So the ancients would have seen the Milky Way get much brighter in a very distinctive way. Also the superwave probably caused planetary issues in the Solar System which would naturally be associated with the brighter Milky Way.

Superwaves are actually a part of our electric universe as a good percentage of galaxies have such superwaves, and the superwave would be formed electrically, perhaps as a surge. So for us it is a matter of determining if the core of the Milky Way does have electrical surges or explosions.

Cheers,
Mo


I don't think you quite stated the issue correctly, Mo. The first question is whether a possible "brightening" of the Milky Way offers a helpful explanation of the myth-making epoch of human history. It really doesn't, except in the sense that the clearing of a more local space environment is indeed implied: not even the Sun and Moon appear to have been visible as discrete objects when the Polar Configuration dominated the sky. And yet we know the Sun was present, because its light was responsible for the polar crescent on Saturn, revolving in the ancient cycle of day and night. The available evidence suggests that the Polar Configuration arose in a prehistoric dusty plasma environment, insulating the background stars from the terrestrial view. Look to the first millennium BC and Babylonian astronomical diaries for definitive evidence that the remote stars could, by then, be seen as discrete objects in the now-familiar star groups or constellations. In other words, the interplanetary medium had cleared quite dramatically.
David Talbott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby David Talbott » Mon May 08, 2017 9:49 am

Norman wrote:More on the Electric Universe and the mythical interpretation, included the Milky Way.

There is evidently a strong electric current in the center of the Milky Way. Where there is a standing electric current, there is a perpendicular magnetic field which creates the Milky Way disc itself and provides rotational and orbital motion to everything in the galaxy and subsequently to the Solar System.

In the Egyptian myth of creation, The Ogdoad, this creation is described by 4 pairs of elementary (male and female) forces, qualities and elements which came together, which resulted in a "fiery Light" in the center, called Amun-Ra.

Amun-Ra and the Milky Way goddess Hathor had a complex relationship and together they created everything in the ancient known part of the Universe, the Milky Way. Links - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor#Relationships.2C_associations.2C_images.2C_and_symbols

In this way the Egyptians mytho-cosmologically described the electric light in the Milky Way center, "The First Central and Enclosed Light", Amun-Ra, which is interpreted by most scholars to represent the Sun, but this is wrong because Amun-Ra is closely and directly connected to the Milky Way realms via goddess Hathor who represents the contours of the Milky Way i.e. "she" is the Great Mother Goddess who gives form and life to everything, as stated in the numerous cultural descriptions of their prime mother goddess. Link - http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/ogdoad.html

In this way one can deduce that our ancestors knew perfectly well how the creation of the Milky Way went on and that ancient knowledge fully can compete with modern cosmological sccience and compute with the Electric Universe Theory - and the ancient knowledge ever supercedes the modern thinking just because of the ancient perception of a cyclic formation in the Universe.


Not so, Norman. There is no evidence that during the myth-making epoch human beings could see the Milky Way. The archetypal themes of world mythology can be named by the hundreds, but the stars of our galaxy were not a subject of the original formulations. And yet the description of the axial column of the Polar Configuration as a cosmic river is indeed worldwide. Of course it was only with the later emergence of the sky we know today that storytellers and symbolists would ask the remote galactic stars to stand in for that earlier archetypal form. The Egyptians named the original aetheric column as the pillar of Shu (called also the "waterway"). Every word in the descriptions of Shu suggests a concrete object in the sky, and the stated origins of the heaven-reaching pillar are critical to the understanding of the oft-described form itself.

The Sumerians and Babylonians named the same column as the pillar-god Enlil, called also the "great mountain." Exploration of the cross-cultural imagery (first explored in The Saturn Myth) has continued for decades, and it's only necessary to follow the theme to its roots to see that it was the farthest thing from a mere metaphor for the stars of the Milky Way.

A simple example: Once you discern that the Egyptian "Waterway of Shu" is inseparable from the god's explicit form as a visible pillar, you are no longer permitted to ignore the detailed character of that pillar-god, including (but reaching far beyond) his birth, his relationship to the mother goddess, and his identity as the first form of the warrior-hero in Egypt. Nor can we ignore his connection to the planet Mars in later times, as Mesopotamian astronomical knowledge filtered into the ancient chroniclers' accounts.

On Shu as the pillar of the sky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw_Yoin ... g6r6C_dtqB
David Talbott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Webbman » Mon May 08, 2017 10:37 am

I find the polar configuration quite interesting and we know not all planets spin the same way, which leaves me wondering if it were possible that a polar configuration with the Antarctic facing the sun and spinning such that one pole was in perpetual darkness ( an ice age for this side) and the other in perpetual light.

would not the sun appear to those at the current equatorial regions as a diffuse glow. That is not to discount your Saturn alignment, just that the sun could still be there and not quite as visible or not shift much in the sky.

just an alternate to the earth being in a plasma cloud whether it was due to Saturn's "purple haze" or just a murky solar system.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon May 08, 2017 3:08 pm

When was this 'myth-making epoch'?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby moses » Mon May 08, 2017 6:52 pm

I think that a brightening of the Milky Way could co-exist with a Saturn System. Thus way way back in time people produced stories about the Milky Way. Then later Saturn and the Sun interacted.

I see two big stories in the myths. The Milky Way and planetary interactions. The column is tricky as The Earth might have lit up in the polar regions under much greater electrical conditions. Then again a brighter Milky Way might be a column or a conection between Earth and Saturn might be a column.

Of course all that really matters is that humanity was electrically crunched and epigenetics changed and perhaps we all repressed what happened.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby David Talbott » Tue May 09, 2017 7:50 am

Grey Cloud wrote:When was this 'myth-making epoch'?


The evidence suggests that civilization itself emerged from ritual reenactments of urgently remembered events. (Here I cannot think of any exceptions to the rule.) Once the connection is discerned and one gives special attention to the earliest sacred texts (e.g., from Egypt and Mesopotamia), it becomes clear that these texts were derived from—and as—collective memories of a celestial provocation. In light of the global nature of the events, a reconstruction is possible by giving attention to the cross-cultural points of agreement. Under common theoretical assumptions today, this underlying accord could not be even remotely possible.

In other words, the vast field of evidence could not exist without the implied celestial events, And this is the overriding reason why no one has ever succeeded in explaining the field of evidence by reference to events observed in nature today.

This is also why every archetype stands no more than a few degrees of separation from any other archetype; and why no archetype appears to have emerged after the myth-making epoch.
David Talbott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue May 09, 2017 9:42 am

David Talbott wrote:
Grey Cloud wrote:When was this 'myth-making epoch'?


The evidence suggests that civilization itself emerged from ritual reenactments of urgently remembered events. (Here I cannot think of any exceptions to the rule.) Once the connection is discerned and one gives special attention to the earliest sacred texts (e.g., from Egypt and Mesopotamia), it becomes clear that these texts were derived from—and as—collective memories of a celestial provocation. In light of the global nature of the events, a reconstruction is possible by giving attention to the cross-cultural points of agreement. Under common theoretical assumptions today, this underlying accord could not be even remotely possible.

In other words, the vast field of evidence could not exist without the implied celestial events, And this is the overriding reason why no one has ever succeeded in explaining the field of evidence by reference to events observed in nature today.

This is also why every archetype stands no more than a few degrees of separation from any other archetype; and why no archetype appears to have emerged after the myth-making epoch.
None of which actually answers the question.
How does one 'urgently remember' something?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue May 09, 2017 11:14 am

Dave Talbott wrote:
The first requirement of a critic is to go to the original sources.
I have gone to your sources which are mostly secondary and tertiary.

Dave Talbott wrote:
If you want to be taken seriously as a critic, the first thing to discover for yourself is why readers and viewers of our documentaries have, to an extraordinary degree, affirmed the persuasiveness of the cited evidence.
Because they lack the requisite knowledge of the subjects covered? Because they haven't gone back to the original sources?

Dave Talbott wrote:
Perhaps you could check in with a few of the 1.3 million viewers of Symbols of an Alien Sky. Or the million or so viewers of the documentary Thunderbolts of the Gods.
Having watched both videos I checked in with me.

Dave Talbott wrote:
Then ask yourself why, despite the highly unconventional thesis presented, in every instance the vast majority (by AT LEAST 10 to 1, sometimes 30 to 1 or more) find the evidence given to be persuasive.
Because they lack the requisite knowledge of the subjects covered? Because they haven't gone back to the original sources?

Dave Talbott wrote:
With this consideration in mind, I can't help but wonder if you or that strange fellow "Norman" actually believe you've met that first test.
Which first test? The 'first requirement of a critic . . ' or the 'first thing to discover . . '?

So let's have a look at some of these sources. (I'm using a Kindle edition of The Saturn Myth so my page numbering is different, e.g. the p37 quoted by DT is p22 in mine.)

128 Olcott, Myths of the Sun, 141-42. This is the first reference in the chapter 'Polar Sun'.
https://archive.org/details/sunloreofallages00olco
Hardly an original source.
W. T. Olcott, Sun Lore of All Ages: A Collection of Myths and Legends Concerning the Sun and Its Worship, 1914,
William Tyler Olcott (1873–1936) was an American lawyer and amateur astronomer.

129 Budge, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, 627.
This appears to be a misprint as the Book of the Dead doesn't run to anywhere near that many pages or chapters. In any case it is only a reference for the word 'day'.
130 Ibid., 76.
“The lords of all lands . . . praise Re when he riseth at the beginning of each day.” Re is the “great Light who shinest in the heavens . . . Thou art glorious by reason of thy splendours . . .”130 Such imagery would seem to leave no question as to the god’s solar character.
Again couldn't find this in my copy of Budge, neither page nor chapter.
https://archive.org/details/TheEgyptianBookOfTheDead

131 Boll, “Kronos-Helios,” 343, R8.
One thus finds of interest an Egyptian ostrakon (first century B.C.) cited by Franz Boll: the ostrakon identifies the planet Saturn as the great god Re.
First 'ostrakon' - 'In an archaeological or epigraphical context, ostraca refer to sherds or even small pieces of stone that have writing scratched into them'. [wiki]
This ref is to a 1919 German language publication with no translation given, the German text is not given either.

But
many scholars notice that among the Greeks and Latins there prevailed a mysterious confusion of

the “sun”
(Greek helios, Latin sol) with the outermost planet. Thus the expression “star of Helios” or

“star of Sol” was applied to Saturn.132.

132 Bouché-Leclerq, L’Astrologie Grecque , 93, note 2.
https://ia801407.us.archive.org/23/item ... ucuoft.pdf
"prevailed a mysterious confusion".
Nonsense. Bouché-Leclerq cites three authors: the anonymous author of an epitome of Eratosthenes; Hyginus; and an anonymous scholiast (commentator) of Germanicus. He also names the Neoplatonist Simplicius in his book against Aristotle's On the Heavens. Bouché-Leclerq also gives a possible cause of the confusion: the equating of El/Bel with Kronos. There also seems to be a reference to the constellation Aries in there - Bélier (ram).

Hyginus, in listing the planets, names first Jupiter, then the planet “of Sol, others say of Saturn.” 133 Why was the planet most distant from the sun called both “sun” and “Saturn”?

133 Hyginus, Poetica astronomica II, 42.
The full entry for Saturn in Hyginus (1st century CE):
http://www.theoi.com/Text/HyginusAstronomica2.html#42
Hyginus:
Code: Select all
"The second star is that of Sol; others say of Saturn. Eratosthenes claims that it is called Phaethon, from the son of Sol. Many have written about him – how he foolishly drove his father’s chariot and set fire to the earth. Because of this he was struck with a thunderbolt by Jove, and fell into the river Eridanus, and was conveyed by Sol to the constellations."
That is the entire entry. Note the 'of' = belonging to. One could ask why Hyginus only names five planets instead of the virtually universal seven. He has omitted the Sun (or Saturn) and the
Moon. He notes a difference of opinion as he does with the other planets. The confusion could arise from many of these names translating as 'light', 'bright', 'shining', etc. There is nothing in the context of this entry or the entries of the other planets to suggest any change in the solar system and certainly nothing to suggest a stationary Saturn at the North pole.

The section on planets is followed immeditately by:
II.43 MILKY WAY
There is a certain circular figure among the constellations, white in color, which some have called the Milky Way. Eratosthenes says that Juno, without realizing it, gave milk to the infant Mercury, but when she learned that he was the son of Maia, she thrust him away, and the whiteness of the flowing milk appears among the constellations.

Others have said that Hercules was given to Juno to nurse when she slept. When she awoke, it happened as described above. Others, again, say that Hercules was so greedy that he couldn’t hold in his mouth all the milk he had sucked, and the Milky Way spilled over from his mouth.

Still others say that at the time Ops brought to Saturn the stone, pretending it was a child, he bade her offer milk to it; when she pressed her breast, the milk that was caused to flow formed the circle which we mentioned above.
The Milky Way gets 3 paragraphs to Saturn's 1 (if it is Saturn and not the Sun). Note that the metaphor used here is one of nurture and nourishment, originating in a goddess and projecting outwards. The name of the goddess and the name of the recipient do not matter; the metaphor remains the same.

Note 134 is a reference to Bouché-Leclerq above.

Yet, as noted by Boll, the identification is more widespread than generally acknowledged and is much more than a misunderstanding of names.135

135 “Allein seither ist völlig klar geworden und wohl auch allgemein zugestanden, dass die

Gleichsetzung von Kronos, dem Gotte des Planeten Saturn, mit dem Sonnengotte weit vor jedem möglichen griechischen Missverständnis liegt: es handelt sich um ein altes und durch Keilinschriften vollkommen sicher bezeugtes Stuck des babylonischen Sternglaubens . . .” Boll, op. cit., 343.
I do not have German so I provide translations by Google and Bing.
Google:
"But since then, it has become quite clear, and it is also generally accepted that Kronos, the god of the planet Saturn, with the sun god, is far from any Greek misunderstanding: it is an ancient stucco of the Babylonian, Star faith. , ,"

Bing:
"Since then, it has become completely clear and well-known in general terms, that the equating of Kronos, the god of the planet Saturn, with the sun God is far ahead of any possible Greek misunderstanding: it is an old piece of the Babylonian star faith, completely attested by cuneiform inscriptions...".
I'm open to a better translation by a German speaker but it seems clear in both of these that there is a differentiation between 'god' and 'planet'.

136 Plato, Epinomis, 987c.
The “confusion” is also far older than Philo, who lived in the first century of the Christian era. In the Epinomis of Plato (who lived in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.), there is an enumeration of the planets, which, as customarily translated, entails this unstartling statement: “There remain, then, three stars (planets), one of which is preeminent among them for slowness, and some call him after Kronos.”136.

Original:
[987c] and do state, so much as adequate knowledge tells us. For real wisdom shows herself in some such way as this to him who has got even a little share of right and divine meditation. And now there remain three stars, of which one is distinguished from the others by its slowness, and some speak of it under the title of Saturn; the next after it in slowness is to be cited as Jupiter; and the next after this, as Mars, which has the ruddiest hue of all. Nothing in all this is hard to understand [987d] when someone expresses it; but it is through learning, as we declare, that one must believe it.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 9,035:987c
There is nothing in this section which gives any support to the Polar Sun or importance to the planet Saturn. Saturn is the slowest planet, i.e. it has the longest orbit. 'Slowness' is not 'stationary' in any case. Note the mention of meditation and learning.

Yet the original reading is not Kronos but Helios137
137 Ibid.
Do we have the original by Philip of Opos or do we have a copy? Or do we have a copy of a copy? Or fragments of a copy?

Perhaps Dave Talbott could provide us with his translations of the French and German quotes.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby David Talbott » Tue May 09, 2017 2:08 pm

Grey Cloud, I fail to see an argument for anything whatsoever in this response. Plus, you injected a huge deception. The deception is to suggest that The Saturn Myth ignored original sources and relied upon secondary sources. The truth is that from the beginning, the more ancient and original sources constituted the bedrock of the reconstruction. This most basic source material included the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, The Egyptian Coffin Texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Edfu temple texts, Sumerian Temple Hymns and poetic literature, the Hindu Rig Veda, Atharva Veda, and Upanishads, the Persian Zend Avesta, Finish Kalevala, Japanese Kojiki, Greek Hesiod, Homer, and Apollodorus, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, and all available Mesoamerican codices, to name just a few.

There are no resources more original than those I drew upon for primary data. Moreover, in virtually every instance, for secondary sources I drew upon the most accomplished scholars in the field, supplemented by a few notable authors who deserved mention for having discerned the original placement of the supreme power at the celestial Pole.

As a footnote I might mention that in no instance did I fail to read the entire volume when working with the primary sources cited, and in some instances I covered every word at least a half-dozen times (and in rare instances, such as the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, more than that). There is a reason why it took several years to complete the book.

For these and dozens of other reasons (which I can cite and publish at Thunderbolts.info if necessary) I find your uninformed and deceptive postings here offensive.
David Talbott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Wed May 10, 2017 12:02 pm

David Talbott wrote:
Grey Cloud, I fail to see an argument for anything whatsoever in this response. Plus, you injected a huge deception. The deception is to suggest that The Saturn Myth ignored original sources and relied upon secondary sources.
Okay, once more from the top. I responded to a post by, the now banned, Norman here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16207&start=165#p119484
You then replied in the post below it where you stated:
"The first requirement of a critic is to go to the original sources. See the chapter on "The Polar Sun" in The Saturn Myth, pp. 37ff."


So I went to the 'The Polar Sun' chapter and looked at the sources. The post you are having trouble with contained a review of the first 10 references in the PS chapter. These 10 refs are provided by 6 different sources, only 3 of which could be considered original or primary - Book of the Dead, Hyginus and Epinomis.

Moreover, I noted that none of the references actually provide any support for Saturn being stationary or anywhere near the North pole, or having changed location in any way.

So to sum up. I am arguing that despite your protestations to the contrary, you do not to any great degree rely on original sources; your sources do not not, thus far at least, support your theory; and that I have not 'injected a huge deception'.

With exception of the Japanese Kojiki I have read all the works you posted and much more. I have also read modern scholars' books and essays on all of the relevant subjects. By 'modern' I mean from the 18th to the 21st century.

"For these and dozens of other reasons (which I can cite and publish at Thunderbolts.info if necessary) I find your uninformed and deceptive postings here offensive."
To quote the Duke of Wellington, 'publish and be damned'. Will you grant me the right of reply if you do?. How am I being 'uninformed'or 'deceptive' when I am reading and quoting your book and your sources and quoting both vebatim?

References 138 and 139 are both in German from Boll. Given that DT has read Boll perhaps he could give us a translation? Until then we shall have to rely on Google and Bing.

138: Since then I have observed the same variant in different places: in Ptolem. Tetrab, p. 67, 8 write the two old editions of Kronon, while the best Hs. V (Vatic, 1038) has hion; At Rhetorios in Catal, codd. astrol. VII, 203, 9 stands in the HSS. R V Kronon, in T hlion: here, as with Ptolemy, is the planet Saturn. More striking and probably hardly original is the same variant in the Pinax of the Keb, where the 3rd hand of the very late Cod. C (XVth year) and of the Meibojms of Hes. ) Replace the name (Kronon) of the god to whom the temple is consecrated with that Pinaz by Hlion.' "Op. Cit., 344.
Google

Since then I have observed the same variant in different places: in Ptolem. Tetrab, p. 67, 8 write the two old editions Kronon while the best hs. V (Vatic. 1038) has hlion; At Rhetorios in Catal, Codd. Astrol. VII 203, 9 is in the HSS. R v Kronon, in T hlion: This is what is meant by Ptolemy the planet Saturn. More unusual and probably hardly original is the same variant in the Pinax of the Cebes, where the 3rd hand of the very late cod. C (XV. Year.) and Dije HS. MEIBOJMS on the Edge twice (p. 1, 1.2, 7 PR.) Replace the name (Kronon) of the God whom the temple is consecrated with that Pinaz by ' Hlion '.
Bing

139: "This is certain, however, that, according to an often-expressed conception of the Babylonians and Syrians, Kronos and Helios are one and the same divinity, which manifested itself in the two most powerful stars of the day and night,
Google.

139 "But so much is certain that after a often testified idea of the Babylonians and Syrians Kronos and Helios are one and the same deity revealed in the two most powerful stars of the day and night,
Bing.

These two passages would appear to support the Saturn/Kronos-Helios equation but they are late (Ptolemy, 1st century CE) and seem to involve comparison of several redactions and or glosses of the same manuscript(s). None of it seems to allude to Saturn being anywhere other than where it should be.
The Tetrabiblios is a work on astrology. I have no problem with that other than adding the caveat that any references to planets etc. should be taken in context and not read as history.

The equation of sun and Saturn is very old, with roots in Sumero-Babylonian astronomy. Of the Babylonian star-worshippers the chronicler Diodorus writes: “To the one we call Saturn they give a special name, ‘Sun-Star.’”140


140 Diodorus II. 30-33.
"And since they have observed the stars over a long period of time and have noted both the movements and the influences of each of them with greater precision than any other men, they foretell to mankind many things that will take place in the future. But above all in importance, they say, is the study of the influence of the five stars known as planets, which they call "Interpreters" when speaking of them as a group, but if referring to them singly, the one named Cronus by the Greeks, which is the most conspicuous and presages more events and such as are of
greater importance than the others, they call the star of Helius, whereas the other four they designate as the stars of Ares, Aphrodite, Hermes, and Zeus, as do our astrologers. The reason why they call them "Interpreters" is that whereas all the other stars are fixed and follow a singular circuit in a regular course, these alone, by virtue of following each its own course, point out future events, thus interpreting to mankind the design of the gods. For sometimes by their risings, sometimes by their settings, and again by their colour, the Chaldaeans say, they give signs of coming events to such as are willing to observe them closely; for at one time they show forth mighty storms of winds, at another excessive rains or heat, at times the appearance of comets, also eclipses of both sun and moon, and earthquakes, and in a word all the conditions which owe their origin to the atmosphere and work both benefits and harm, not only to whole peoples or regions, but also to kings and to persons of private station."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... A*.html#29

So Saturn moves just like the other planets and it is only notable for its utility in predicting events.

6 Under the course in which these planets move are situated, according to them, thirty stars, which they designate as "counselling gods";

Twelve of these gods, they say, hold chief authority

Dio. 31 Beyond the circle of the zodiac they designate twenty-four other stars, of which one half, they say, are situated in the northern parts and one half in the southern, . . . so they call them "Judges of the Universe
."
But as to the number of years which, according to their statements, the order of the Chaldaeans has spent on the study of the bodies of the universe, a man can scarcely believe them; for they reckon that, down to Alexander's crossing over into Asia, it has been four hundred and seventy-three thousand years, since they began in early times to make their observations of the stars.
Lots of gods, lots of stars and lots of time. None of which suggests a Polar Sun. Diodoros (1st century BCE) is here giving a historical survey of the various nations.

But M. Jastrow, in an article entitled “Sun and Saturn,” reports that in the Babylonian astronomical texts the identification of Shamash with Saturn is unequivocal: “the planet Saturn is Shamash,” they boldly declare.141

141 Jastrow, “Sun and Saturn “, 163-78
142 Ibid., 171.
Now we come to Jastrow's infamous 'Sun and Saturn' essay, lynchpin of Saturn theorists everywhere.
Leaving aside the hyperbolic 'they boldly declare', the connection is indeed there. It should be noted that they are calling Saturn 'a' sun not 'the' Sun. All the other visible planets are also mentioned and nowhere does it suggest a stationary Saturn nor a solitary Saturn.
The essay itself was written in 1910 when Assyriology was in its infancy, and this much is obvious from the tentative nature of the suggests and the disagreements between the scholars over word meanings. So the questions I would ask are: has archaeology unearthed any further material on this subject; has 100 years of study by Assyriologists allowed a clearer picture to emerge, and so on.
Interestingly, many of the previous references are in Jastrow's footnotes.
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/sun-and-saturn/

The apparent equivalence of Saturn and the “sun” goes back to Sumerian times, as is evident in the dual aspect of the creator god Ninurta. Langdon deems Ninurta both the sun and Saturn: “ . . . the sun-god Ninurta . . . in the original Sumerian Epic of Creation, defeated the dragon of chaos and founded cities . . . In Sumero-Babylonian religion he is the War-god and planet Saturn.”143
143 Langdon Semitic Mythology, 55.

There is here a remnant of an ancient and widely spread Semitic myth, originating in Sumer and Accad, concerning the Sun-god Nimurta, who, in the original Sumerian Epic of Creation, defeated the dragon of chaos and founded cities. Since Nineveh appears in history in the fifteenth century, and Calah was founded by Shalmanasar I (thirteenth century), this legend cannot be earlier. Nimurta was the principal deity of Calah, and called " the dweller of Calah." In Sumero-Babylonian religion he is the War-god and the planet Saturn, and there is no myth
concerning his hunting exploits, except in connection with his hunting the foes of Babylonia.

https://ia800705.us.archive.org/19/item ... /MAR05.pdf
Note that Ninurta is the Sun-god before he is the Saturn-god. So once again, yes, there is a sun-Saturn connection but nothing about a stationary or slitary Saturn.
This is another 100 years old book. The period of a couple of decades either side of the beginning of the 20th century is not a good place to get one's information. Scholarship is polluted with all sorts of theories which have long since been discredited - not least the Solar school.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest