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.