An attempt at available source material prioritization
Posted: 14 Jan 2023, 16:52
Hello everyone!
To continue the theme as described in my introduction (See viewtopic.php?t=8) I want to make a list about the most fundamental source material that we are working with. To make other people's work easier, but also maybe spark interest and make conversation happen. Starting from the oldest mansuscripts all the way up to the codexes are in first tier, then late middle ages (the dawn of renaissance), times of the reformation and after that later studies etc. Of course for obvious reasons Oera Linda reaching all the way so far back into the past I'd just blatantly place it in there, so don't be confused it's not mentioned in the list. I want to first explain one thing about the way I'm working:
I've been looking into the way bible translation was going on in the time of church reformation in Europe and I have come to realize something. First, knowing that how much source material has been destroyed regarding the translation process in those times, also all the way in the time Vulgata (early latin translation of the bible) and old Vulgata (meaning all other latin translations before the one by St. Jerome) and how much has been overall forgotten, I've come to appreciate the translators of the bible a lot more than some years before (even though I'm not a believer). How written language came into being comes out very negatively as a phenomena in Bock saga, and even though there were a lot of suspicious motives behind the church reformation, I can appreciate the fact that when bibles got its' structure with chapters and verses people of different backgrounds were presented with a whole new opportunity to jump back to past and read the parts with a completely alien language but still comparing the bible translations in our native tongue we can still make out the most of the information.
I know that the bible translations that came after 19th century has changed all of this. Because the folk of the past had the source material that we no longer have, amazingly, translating ''the thought'' of the past is actually made possible comparing the old bible translations, and I'm not sure if many people are aware of this. Because it was regarded as one very important work, it was most commonly accessible in many places, and because language similarities in many countries the translators could use other translations as a reference point. This might be or might not be the reason why even the first finnish translation of the New Testament by M. Agricola in 1548 (was already ready in 1541) relied heavily on the german translation by M. Luther, the same as the other translators, and all of this is clearly visible if you read the early bible translations.
Let me just write here that I think Wikipedia is super biased about the the whole subject. You would not believe me. I'm considering putting here also a writing about what I've found out about the translation process of the bible up to this moment.
So as long as we have the understanding that on what sound a a specific symbol, a letter, is based on, we have a pretty good toolset to work with. Due to the status and the contentual value of the bible, (some of) the oldest manuscripts are of special importance, and this holds true with other traditions besides ie. christianity, for example gnosticism and writing of the early church fathers. Bringing importance to a specific subject among all possible spectrums and fields makes the focus of the student less burdening (making the spectrum more ''scarce'' may have its' benefits timewise... but ultimately not, and so that's why the need for further evaluation is inevitable either way), and in this way, especially with earliest (koptic) greek translations of the bible connect the huge ammount of the earliest old greek manuscripts through language, and from there opens all possible alternative approaches to work with, for example:
#1: In both Bock saga and OL a language similar to english actually seems much much more older than thought in this day and age, so - the claim that the European languages were very much influenced with latin and greek so all perspectives on the past with etymology is a fable in its' possibilities at most flips upside down. The Vatican only had the holy mandate to do whatever with the languages before and after the crusades, and this didn't change in the time of the reformation. So the possible connections, for example, of the latin and greek (and some other ones left unmentioned for now) with Scandinavian languages and English
Think for yourself:
Claim A - nevermind the latin and greek languages, because they were a mixture of other languages of that time.
Claim B - nevermind the early documentation of the other languages besides latin and greek because they just copied from them.
The available arguments run a full circle. Laughable.
#2: Considering that, for example, there is a connection between some hypothetical finnic language (finnish + sami + karelian + meänkieli + etc.) to ''old english'' <--> fryan language.
#3: All sorts of new theories. Here's one example that Wiktionary has left unmentioned completely, why??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poimandres#Etymology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herder#Sheep
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ποιμήν#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paimen
So, overall, as mr. Ott already seemed to give a taste of already (Saved from the Flood ~ Oera Linda Studies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK6syrYezLQ), the past connection of greek to other languages seems to be some kind of game changer. The languages maybe, but the words themselves haven't changed so much as we are led to belive?
I now start to list the materials and source sites on this. I may accidentally seem a bit biased on some materials because my attention is more in the side of Bock saga. It just so happens that as-language (the ''swedish'' language spoken in the southern parts of Finland) is very poorly documented before the time of reformation (the first swedish translation of the new testament came out in 1526), so my priorities may be different than some of the others'. And please recommend me stuff if you think I left something unmentioned or ask a question or questions.
To continue the theme as described in my introduction (See viewtopic.php?t=8) I want to make a list about the most fundamental source material that we are working with. To make other people's work easier, but also maybe spark interest and make conversation happen. Starting from the oldest mansuscripts all the way up to the codexes are in first tier, then late middle ages (the dawn of renaissance), times of the reformation and after that later studies etc. Of course for obvious reasons Oera Linda reaching all the way so far back into the past I'd just blatantly place it in there, so don't be confused it's not mentioned in the list. I want to first explain one thing about the way I'm working:
I've been looking into the way bible translation was going on in the time of church reformation in Europe and I have come to realize something. First, knowing that how much source material has been destroyed regarding the translation process in those times, also all the way in the time Vulgata (early latin translation of the bible) and old Vulgata (meaning all other latin translations before the one by St. Jerome) and how much has been overall forgotten, I've come to appreciate the translators of the bible a lot more than some years before (even though I'm not a believer). How written language came into being comes out very negatively as a phenomena in Bock saga, and even though there were a lot of suspicious motives behind the church reformation, I can appreciate the fact that when bibles got its' structure with chapters and verses people of different backgrounds were presented with a whole new opportunity to jump back to past and read the parts with a completely alien language but still comparing the bible translations in our native tongue we can still make out the most of the information.
I know that the bible translations that came after 19th century has changed all of this. Because the folk of the past had the source material that we no longer have, amazingly, translating ''the thought'' of the past is actually made possible comparing the old bible translations, and I'm not sure if many people are aware of this. Because it was regarded as one very important work, it was most commonly accessible in many places, and because language similarities in many countries the translators could use other translations as a reference point. This might be or might not be the reason why even the first finnish translation of the New Testament by M. Agricola in 1548 (was already ready in 1541) relied heavily on the german translation by M. Luther, the same as the other translators, and all of this is clearly visible if you read the early bible translations.
Let me just write here that I think Wikipedia is super biased about the the whole subject. You would not believe me. I'm considering putting here also a writing about what I've found out about the translation process of the bible up to this moment.
So as long as we have the understanding that on what sound a a specific symbol, a letter, is based on, we have a pretty good toolset to work with. Due to the status and the contentual value of the bible, (some of) the oldest manuscripts are of special importance, and this holds true with other traditions besides ie. christianity, for example gnosticism and writing of the early church fathers. Bringing importance to a specific subject among all possible spectrums and fields makes the focus of the student less burdening (making the spectrum more ''scarce'' may have its' benefits timewise... but ultimately not, and so that's why the need for further evaluation is inevitable either way), and in this way, especially with earliest (koptic) greek translations of the bible connect the huge ammount of the earliest old greek manuscripts through language, and from there opens all possible alternative approaches to work with, for example:
#1: In both Bock saga and OL a language similar to english actually seems much much more older than thought in this day and age, so - the claim that the European languages were very much influenced with latin and greek so all perspectives on the past with etymology is a fable in its' possibilities at most flips upside down. The Vatican only had the holy mandate to do whatever with the languages before and after the crusades, and this didn't change in the time of the reformation. So the possible connections, for example, of the latin and greek (and some other ones left unmentioned for now) with Scandinavian languages and English
Think for yourself:
Claim A - nevermind the latin and greek languages, because they were a mixture of other languages of that time.
Claim B - nevermind the early documentation of the other languages besides latin and greek because they just copied from them.
The available arguments run a full circle. Laughable.
#2: Considering that, for example, there is a connection between some hypothetical finnic language (finnish + sami + karelian + meänkieli + etc.) to ''old english'' <--> fryan language.
#3: All sorts of new theories. Here's one example that Wiktionary has left unmentioned completely, why??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poimandres#Etymology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herder#Sheep
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ποιμήν#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paimen
So, overall, as mr. Ott already seemed to give a taste of already (Saved from the Flood ~ Oera Linda Studies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK6syrYezLQ), the past connection of greek to other languages seems to be some kind of game changer. The languages maybe, but the words themselves haven't changed so much as we are led to belive?
I now start to list the materials and source sites on this. I may accidentally seem a bit biased on some materials because my attention is more in the side of Bock saga. It just so happens that as-language (the ''swedish'' language spoken in the southern parts of Finland) is very poorly documented before the time of reformation (the first swedish translation of the new testament came out in 1526), so my priorities may be different than some of the others'. And please recommend me stuff if you think I left something unmentioned or ask a question or questions.