The Bock Saga Muddying the Waters

[Er Aldaric]

Just from looking through other posts on this forum I notice a lot of cross references being made between the Bock Saga and the Oera Linda. I am not an expert on the Bock saga, but from what I know it is ahistorical. Ior Bock is a charlatan or at least mentally ill, and the entirety of the Bock saga relies on his account alone, whereas the Oera Linda as a manuscript is can be objectively determined to be legitimate. The public's perception to Oera Linda is also volatile, the Bock Saga is muddying the waters - especially for those who may just be getting into the Oera Linda and can't discern what the actual contents are.

[Helgiteut]

I must agree .Lumping them together won't bring more knowledge, until at least one of them is thoroughly studied. And the claims made by Ior Bock are too many to all prove.

[PýrKlépsas]

Bock saga is as valid source in the world as any other, because Ior Bock never claimed the saga is the ultimate truth, but a saga he is transmitting onwards, similar to any other thing that speaks for itself. And like Er Aldaric ready said:

... I am not an expert on the Bock saga, but from what I know it is ahistorical. Ior Bock is a charlatan or at least mentally ill ...

I'm not pulling strings over here, but this is practically what all newsjournalists are repeating over and over again, originating from stories from people who have never personally met mr. Bock. You may label the people interested in Bock saga as those who spread lies etc. but I have already experienced this first-handed, so the rest is up to the keepers of this forum.

Besides this, I have not seen anyone who is lumping anything together over here (let me know if this is the case), like nobody is lumping the OL and the Old Testament together either, but people are trying to search for information with clues, and it just so happens Bock saga gives the OL a totally new impression - but that's what Bock saga is like in general!

I can see the point that Bock saga might not be the 'main attractor' in this forum, but from what I have seen, the biggest death blow for OL is the lack of study, not excess. That said, if you can make us more intelligent through your posts, then the whole world is waiting! Thank you.

[Er Aldaric]

Just because Mr. Ior Bock claims his saga isn't the ultimate truth does not automatically make it legitimate. Like I said there is no way to prove anything he says because he himself is the source. That is putting a lot of faith on the word of one man alone. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[PýrKlépsas]

Er Aldaric, get off from your high horse. If you think Bock saga does not belong to this forum, then message to the admin. That is better than being a heckler. If you had at least one source for any of your claims you would've already provided us with it already, but I don't think you're going to do that even now when I mentioned it, am I right? While you're at it go learn some manners.

[Nordic]

The point about confusion is valid. A person could enter the OL studies just about barely knowing about Oera Linda book and the existence of small nation called Frisians. One can imagine the resulting initial confusion when words like Valhalla and Odenma are thrown into the mix. I can see how from beginner perspective it's way too much when the basics of what Frisians are, or are said to have been, is still a fresh topic. It's largely the same situation with other primary sources, typically present in non-English language and in presentation format difficult to share easily, as opposed to likes of Wiki essays and online documentaries about more stereotypical history tropes.

For advanced OL studies, comparisons to other sources are must. Finns are along with Celts and Phoenicians one of the three main "bad guys" peoples in OL narrative. A recurring beginner level question type that comes up again and again is if the Keltas are Celts, if the Gools are Galli and Gauls, if the Tro-wids are Druids, if the Magyars and Finns are Finns and so on. The answer is yes, yes, yes and one more time yes. Now the important thing: in some specific OL narrative details the only other source saying the same or similar thing is Bock family saga (aka SLS 1539 a in academic terms). These include:

• strict Magyar-Finn division ↔ strict Aser-Vaner division

• heavy Finnish association with Odin (Wodin) archetype ↔ heavy Finnish association with Odinism (Oden is Nordic variant spelling of Odin)

• OVIRSTE used to denote Finnish rank ↔ överste/eversti as Aser-Vaner system rank title

• reference to Finnish writing system ↔ Aser writing system

• reference to outrageous FINNA SÁGUM ↔ likes of Bock family saga

• Seven Islands and Walhallagara ↔ seven islands and Valhalla.

From advanced OL narrative research viewpoint one must thus see if the Bock family saga, collected over years down into archives by academics and laymen alike, is #1 a valid source or not (primary importance) and #2 historically correct or not (secondary importance). The exact same situation as with any other source, OL included.

The case that #1 it is valid source and #2 it is partially true is made briefly here. I write "briefly" because the saga is alike to OL or Bible in its coverage of topics, themes and eras and thus the issue of validity for its contents can't be answered in simplistic yes/no manner in a forum dedicated mainly to another topic.

The main difference is not between Bock family saga and rest of the old sources, but instead between all the old primary sources and the modern day popular representations of what people in antiquity and medieval era knew, thought about or practised. The gap in shared understanding is not present in the first, but is heavily present in the latter. What goes into our history text books is not representative of what actual medieval Europeans or other peoples thought (e.g. Attila was a Frisian prince, we lived on a round ball planet). There exists multiple reasons to assume Bock family saga retains older or narrative-wise more uncorrupt versions of several Norse saga tropes – and those same Norse peoples are included in OL narrative within the larger pan-Frisian or pan-Germanic nation (e.g. OL MS 047-048, 079). In practical terms a solution could be to keep future commentary laser focused on OL themes, making always very clear to what comes from the OL manuscript itself and what comes from another source.

[Er Aldaric]

In practical terms a solution could be to keep future commentary laser focused on OL themes, making always very clear to what comes from the OL manuscript itself and what comes from another source.

That sounds reasonable. Your connections between the OL and Bock Saga do make sense unlike some other posts I've seen where it's grasping at straws. I myself will look more into the Bock saga if it could potentially give more insight on the Oera Linda. I think our number one priority as 'modern Fryas' is to make this information as accessible and spreadable possible. I don't want to sound anti-intellectual saying this but I don't want us to get lost in Esoterics just yet.

This sounds contradictory to my original statement of laying off the Bock saga on this forum, but if you have the time It'd be helpful if you created a comprehensive post about how the OL and Bock Saga interrelate. Just to use as a reference.